(toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

(toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Nathanael Nerode]

The 'vault' targets appear to be long since abandoned.

	* Makefile.tpl: Remove 'vault' targets.
	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.

Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.111.4.14
diff -u -r1.111.4.14 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	19 Nov 2002 06:56:25 -0000	1.111.4.14
+++ Makefile.in	19 Nov 2002 07:17:43 -0000
@@ -1195,28 +1195,13 @@
 
 # Installation targets.
 
-.PHONY: install uninstall source-vault binary-vault vault-install
+.PHONY: install uninstall
 install: installdirs @install_host_modules@ @install_target_modules@
 
 install-target: @install_target_modules@
 
 uninstall:
 	@echo "the uninstall target is not supported in this tree"
-
-source-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) source-vault
-
-binary-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) target=$(target_alias)
-
-vault-install:
-	@if [ -f ./release/vault-install ] ; then \
-	  ./release/vault-install $(host_alias) $(target_alias) ; \
-	else \
-	  true ; \
-	fi
 
 .PHONY: install.all
 install.all: install-no-fixedincludes
Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.5.2.12
diff -u -r1.5.2.12 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl	19 Nov 2002 06:56:25 -0000	1.5.2.12
+++ Makefile.tpl	19 Nov 2002 07:17:45 -0000
@@ -738,28 +738,13 @@
 
 # Installation targets.
 
-.PHONY: install uninstall source-vault binary-vault vault-install
+.PHONY: install uninstall
 install: installdirs @install_host_modules@ @install_target_modules@
 
 install-target: @install_target_modules@
 
 uninstall:
 	@echo "the uninstall target is not supported in this tree"
-
-source-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) source-vault
-
-binary-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) target=$(target_alias)
-
-vault-install:
-	@if [ -f ./release/vault-install ] ; then \
-	  ./release/vault-install $(host_alias) $(target_alias) ; \
-	else \
-	  true ; \
-	fi
 
 .PHONY: install.all
 install.all: install-no-fixedincludes

(toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Nathanael Nerode]

The 'vault' targets appear to be long since abandoned.

Again, this goes in b-i-b and hits src when gcc3.3 branches.

	* Makefile.tpl: Remove 'vault' targets.
	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.

Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.111.4.14
diff -u -r1.111.4.14 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	19 Nov 2002 06:56:25 -0000	1.111.4.14
+++ Makefile.in	19 Nov 2002 07:17:43 -0000
@@ -1195,28 +1195,13 @@
 
 # Installation targets.
 
-.PHONY: install uninstall source-vault binary-vault vault-install
+.PHONY: install uninstall
 install: installdirs @install_host_modules@ @install_target_modules@
 
 install-target: @install_target_modules@
 
 uninstall:
 	@echo "the uninstall target is not supported in this tree"
-
-source-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) source-vault
-
-binary-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) target=$(target_alias)
-
-vault-install:
-	@if [ -f ./release/vault-install ] ; then \
-	  ./release/vault-install $(host_alias) $(target_alias) ; \
-	else \
-	  true ; \
-	fi
 
 .PHONY: install.all
 install.all: install-no-fixedincludes
Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.5.2.12
diff -u -r1.5.2.12 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl	19 Nov 2002 06:56:25 -0000	1.5.2.12
+++ Makefile.tpl	19 Nov 2002 07:17:45 -0000
@@ -738,28 +738,13 @@
 
 # Installation targets.
 
-.PHONY: install uninstall source-vault binary-vault vault-install
+.PHONY: install uninstall
 install: installdirs @install_host_modules@ @install_target_modules@
 
 install-target: @install_target_modules@
 
 uninstall:
 	@echo "the uninstall target is not supported in this tree"
-
-source-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) source-vault
-
-binary-vault:
-	$(MAKE) -f ./release/Build-A-Release \
-		host=$(host_alias) target=$(target_alias)
-
-vault-install:
-	@if [ -f ./release/vault-install ] ; then \
-	  ./release/vault-install $(host_alias) $(target_alias) ; \
-	else \
-	  true ; \
-	fi
 
 .PHONY: install.all
 install.all: install-no-fixedincludes

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Andrew Cagney]

> The 'vault' targets appear to be long since abandoned.
> 
> Again, this goes in b-i-b and hits src when gcc3.3 branches.

How long is this freeze for?

I think its better for Nath. to be committing this stuff incrementally 
(at least to the src repository).  That way it gets exposed to the 
mainstream sooner.

Andrew

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[DJ Delorie]

> I think its better for Nath. to be committing this stuff incrementally 
> (at least to the src repository).  That way it gets exposed to the 
> mainstream sooner.

We could start committing to src if we don't mind src and gcc being
out of sync until gcc's freeze is over.

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Andrew Cagney]

>> I think its better for Nath. to be committing this stuff incrementally 
>> (at least to the src repository).  That way it gets exposed to the 
>> mainstream sooner.
> 
> 
> We could start committing to src if we don't mind src and gcc being
> out of sync until gcc's freeze is over.

M'kay by me.  Nick?  Preference?

Andrew

(I keep reading that as ``until gcc freezes over'' ... :-)

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Phil Edwards]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 01:13:56PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > We could start committing to src if we don't mind src and gcc being
> > out of sync until gcc's freeze is over.
> 
> M'kay by me.  Nick?  Preference?
> 
> Andrew
> 
> (I keep reading that as ``until gcc freezes over'' ... :-)

We should change the homepage scheme based on the state of the branches.
Normal development uses a normal color/layout scheme.  When a branch is
frozen, all the colors are shades of blue, and icicles hang from the images.
That way people could tell at a glance the state of development.

Heck NO I'm not volunteering to implement it.  :-)


Phil

-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Andrew,

> >> I think its better for Nath. to be committing this stuff
> >> incrementally (at least to the src repository).  That way it gets
> >> exposed to the mainstream sooner.
> > We could start committing to src if we don't mind src and gcc being
> > out of sync until gcc's freeze is over.
> 
> M'kay by me.  Nick?  Preference?

I would prefer to keep the two projects in sync if possible.  I assume
that there is no great urgency to remove the vault targets, so why not
wait until the gcc freeze is over and the patch can be applied to both
projects at the same time ?

Cheers
        Nick

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Andrew Cagney]

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> 
>> >> I think its better for Nath. to be committing this stuff
>> >> incrementally (at least to the src repository).  That way it gets
>> >> exposed to the mainstream sooner.
> 
>> > We could start committing to src if we don't mind src and gcc being
>> > out of sync until gcc's freeze is over.
> 
>> 
>> M'kay by me.  Nick?  Preference?
> 
> 
> I would prefer to keep the two projects in sync if possible.  I assume
> that there is no great urgency to remove the vault targets, so why not
> wait until the gcc freeze is over and the patch can be applied to both
> projects at the same time ?

If it were a single patch, it would be no big deal.  Unfortunatly, it is 
an accumulating sequence of changes that will hit GDB/BINUTILS at some 
random point in the future (most (all?) patches that Nath. recently 
posted are being parked on a branch :-().

In the case of GDB, mega-jumbo breaking branch merges are not our style. 
  Nath. would effectively have to slow-mo re-play these changes into the 
src repository :-(

Andrew

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[DJ Delorie]

>   Nath. would effectively have to slow-mo re-play these changes into
> the src repository :-(

That's what I though we meant...

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Andrew,

> >> M'kay by me.  Nick?  Preference?
> > I would prefer to keep the two projects in sync if possible.  I
> > assume
> > that there is no great urgency to remove the vault targets, so why not
> > wait until the gcc freeze is over and the patch can be applied to both
> > projects at the same time ?
> 
> If it were a single patch, it would be no big deal.  Unfortunatly, it
> is an accumulating sequence of changes that will hit GDB/BINUTILS at
> some random point in the future (most (all?) patches that
> Nath. recently posted are being parked on a branch :-().
> 
> In the case of GDB, mega-jumbo breaking branch merges are not our
> style. Nath. would effectively have to slow-mo re-play these changes
> into the src repository :-(

In which case, Nath - please go ahead and apply the patches.

Cheers
        Nick

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[DJ Delorie]

> In which case, Nath - please go ahead and apply the patches.

Would it be wise to limit such patches to 1-3 per day, say, late in
the USA day so a majority of the nightly auto-builds will catch it and
we've got time to correct them before the next patch?

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Nick Clifton]

Hi DJ,

> > In which case, Nath - please go ahead and apply the patches.
> 
> Would it be wise to limit such patches to 1-3 per day, say, late in
> the USA day so a majority of the nightly auto-builds will catch it and
> we've got time to correct them before the next patch?

Soudns like a good idea - Nate ?

Cheers
        Nick

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[Andrew Cagney]

> Hi DJ,
> 
> 
>> > In which case, Nath - please go ahead and apply the patches.
> 
>> 
>> Would it be wise to limit such patches to 1-3 per day, say, late in
>> the USA day so a majority of the nightly auto-builds will catch it and
>> we've got time to correct them before the next patch?

Night?  To catch GDB's nightly snap it needs to be in before 00:00 UTC.

Shouldn't Nath. just commit in the local morning looking for problems 
through the local day.

Andrew

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[DJ Delorie]

> Night?  To catch GDB's nightly snap it needs to be in before 00:00 UTC.

That would be 7pm EST.  Still late in the day for us.

Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets

[DJ Delorie]

> The 'vault' targets appear to be long since abandoned.
> 
> Again, this goes in b-i-b and hits src when gcc3.3 branches.
> 
> 	* Makefile.tpl: Remove 'vault' targets.
> 	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.

Ok.