Re: PATCH Makefile.in

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jul  4, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:46:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> This is an argument for the removal of dejagnu and expect from the
>> tree, which I agree with.  It's the one-line change in the test to
>> decide which RUNTEST to use that I'm opposing.  I can't imagine such a
>> line is too much baggage to carry around.  If you think so, well...  I
>> guess I'll just shut up and wait until your next ports require changes
>> in dejagnu.

> I keep a local copy of dejagnu in my PATH.  I've been doing this for
> years (and yes, I do deal with two ports that require changes in
> dejagnu).  I find this way much more convenient...

But not as safe.  E.g., I don't want net GCC test runs to be affected
by my local changes to dejagnu required by an ongoing port.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}