From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13009 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2001 07:41:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12870 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2001 07:40:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2001 07:40:26 -0000 Received: from fri.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29025; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [192.168.160.1]) by fri.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAP7eMt06948; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 05:40:22 -0200 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fAP7eKj18065; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 05:40:20 -0200 X-Authentication-Warning: free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br: aoliva set sender to aoliva@redhat.com using -f To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jeff Holcomb , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] updated ltcf-*.sh, ltconfig, ltmain.sh References: <3BF42B78.4090607@cygnus.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney's message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:54:16 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0805 (Gnus v5.8.5) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On Nov 15, 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote: >>> Is there a reason for pulling in GCC's hacks rather than going to >>> the official version per src/MAINTAINERS: >>> ltconfig; ltmain.sh >>> libtool: http://gnu.org >>> Changes need to be done in tandem with the official LIBTOOL >>> sources or submitted to the master file maintainer and brought >>> in via a merge. >> It was my impression from Alexandre that he had already imported >> these changes from the official sources into gcc's tree. For some >> reason, they weren't imported into the binutils/gdb tree at that >> time. > Ok, so now that the change is committed to the master repository, it > can be committed locally. Can the ``gcc-local'' bit be clarified - it > is no longer gcc-local. Rather it was an accelerated patch brought in > from the master repository. Actually, it was indeed gcc local. GCC used to import it from a libtool branch, but the libtool branch was declared dead and merged into libtool mainline along with major reworking. So much that I didn't feel confident about importing it entirely into GCC just before some 3.0.x release. So, we got patches into GCC, as long as similar fixes went into libtool. Eventually, I'll be confident enough with libtool CVS mainline (after doing some testing with it) that I'll import it into GCC and src. Meanwhile, we can live on with what we have now, i.e., a stable snapshot of a libtool CVS branch plus a few patches that didn't make it to the branch before it was terminated. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me