From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12653 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2002 18:28:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12638 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 18:28:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dc-mx18.cluster1.charter.net) (209.225.8.28) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 18:28:11 -0000 Received: from [66.189.46.2] (HELO platinum.local.) by dc-mx18.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 5264030; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:32:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:28:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com To: DJ Delorie From: Klee Dienes In-Reply-To: <200212051742.gB5HgSb20034@envy.delorie.com> Message-Id: <4B95D8BD-087F-11D7-A7CE-00039396EEB8@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 My primary interest in all of this is to fully merge the Apple Binutils/GDB sources into the FSF tree, which requires some changes to libtool that are only in more recent versions of libtool/autoconf. My secondary interest is that I seem to spend a lot of time hacking Binutils/GDB makefiles, and I'd like that process to be as painless as possible. I'm in a moderate hurry for the gdb/binutils changes, mainly because Apple needs to have some form of the changes to enable the FSF sources to build properly on our platform, and I find the mental load of maintaining the divergent sources to be a headache, particularly when preparing patches. I'm in no particular hurry for the libiberty changes, since it doesn't use libtool anyway and the current build setup works fine for Apple in the short-term. I eventually hope to libtool-ize libiberty as well, but that can certainly wait until an appropriate time in the GCC release cycle. On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 12:42 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > By the time the issues are worked out for gdb/binutils and the switch > made there, gcc will hopefully have branched. Plus the gcc head is > more stable than the branch anyway, which is what I'd prefer be the > main copy for everyone else. > > How much of a hurry are you in, anyway?