From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4936 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2002 23:37:20 -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 4928 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2002 23:37:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mms3.broadcom.com) (63.70.210.38) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 2002 23:37:16 -0000 Received: from 63.70.210.1 by mms3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom MMS-3 SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:37:12 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 1e1caf3a-b686-11d4-a6a3-00508bfc9ae5 Received: from dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com (dt-sj3-118 [10.21.64.118]) by mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5ONbDDi024495; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cgd@localhost) by dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com ( 8.9.1/SJ8.9.1) id QAA29999; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT) To: ac131313@cygnus.com cc: tromey@redhat.com, "Eli Zaretskii" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: next gettextization step References: <877kkqq6y8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <3D175146.7060702@cygnus.com> <87lm94jsav.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <3D17AC40.3060108@cygnus.com> From: cgd@broadcom.com Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: ac131313@cygnus.com's message of "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:33:34 +0000 (UTC)" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 110972A259997-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00496.txt.bz2 At Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:33:34 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote: > > Actually, the gmo files aren't in the repository. They do end up in > > the source tree though. > > Sounds like they shouldn't? Personally, I'd agree with this (i.e., if they're going to be generated, they should end up in the build dir). However, note the thread over on binutils from a few days ago, starting with: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-06/msg00634.html which at least attempts to present a rationale for keeping them in the source tree (which i don't happen to agree with 8-). cgd