Re: don't build send-pr,prms,gnats.tar

Re: don't build send-pr,prms,gnats.tar

[DJ Delorie]

> On the other hand, I think it's important we clarify this somewhat;
> I have already received one email asking a question about whether or
> not your message implies that Red Hat is somehow "special".  So, I
> am going to try to answer that question here.

Right, sorry, that was my "dj as a red hat employee" response, not my
"dj as a maintainer" response.  The pattern is this: we ask if
anyone's using a target, if either (1) nobody says they are, or (2)
someone knows why the target is there and can explain why it isn't
needed, then we take it out.  In this case, I knew RH was using it so
I spoke up.  If anyone else spoke up for their targets, we would have
kept those as well.  Usually, of course, Stan tells us the sordid
history of the target and we all agree to remove it ;)

Obviously, if there's a benefit to removing something RH still needs,
well, that's RH's problem.  If we (RH) can't justify it to the net
community, we (RH) will just have to figure out a way to deal with it.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re: don't build send-pr,prms,gnats.tar

[Mark Mitchell]

> Sorry for the confusion.

No problem; I think we're all on the same page, and I just wanted the
community to see that a) that's true, and b) what page it is that we're
on.

Thanks!

-- 
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: don't build send-pr,prms,gnats.tar

[DJ Delorie]

> 2002-07-02  Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@gcc.gnu.org>
> 
> 	* Makefile.in: Don't build prms, send-pr, or GNATS tar files.
> 	* configure.in: Ditto.

Red Hat still uses send-pr internally.  I don't think we use prms
internally though, but safer to just leave those in place for now
since they're all related.