Re: PATCH Makefile.in

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jul  5, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 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.

> It's obvious that we don't agree.  But does anyone besides yourself
> still see value in this?

I guess not, so I'll withdraw my objection, since it looks like I'm by
myself, and I don't want to be the one on the way of, erhm, progress?
:-)

-- 
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}