5.1 README

5.1 README

[Andrew Cagney]

Hello,

Attached is the 5.0 README.  It hasn't changed (I'll do a s/5.0/5.1/). 
However, it occures to me that it should probably mention how to build 
GDB on some of these newer more obscure systems (64 bit solaris comes to 
mind).

	Andrew
From chastain@cygnus.com Sat Jul 07 10:34:00 2001
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: cagney@sourceware.cygnus.com
Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: src/gdb ChangeLog TODO blockframe.c dbxread.c  ...
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <200107071635.JAA15328@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00058.html
Content-length: 138

I disabled Java in my weekly gdb tests around 2001-05-18.  I've made a
note to re-enable it in the future (but not this week).

MichaelC

Re: 5.1 README

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Attached is the 5.0 README.

One problem with this text is that it never mentions "make install",
nor does it tell that to install the Info docs one needs to say
"make install-info" (IMHO a misfeature which I wish would go away
rather sooner than later).

Re: 5.1 README

[Andrew Cagney]

Several things I've noticed:

	o	it recommends a separate build tree
		yet gives the same build tree example
		first

	o	similar, all the other examples assume
		build==source.

	o	it doesn't mention building PDF

Andrew

Re: 5.1 README

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Several things I've noticed:
> 
> 	o	it recommends a separate build tree
> 		yet gives the same build tree example
> 		first

IIRC, this was discussed in the past, and we decided to leave it as it is 
now.  I don't see anything wrong with the current structure: after all, 
for a typical user, keeping the source directory pristine is not very 
important.  Those who care will read the recommendation and act upon it.

> 	o	it doesn't mention building PDF

This can be easily added.  Should I do that?

P.S.  Somebody should make sure the PDF version indeed can be built with 
the popular version(s) of PDFTeX, before we advertise that.

Re: 5.1 README

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> Several things I've noticed:
>> 
>> o	it recommends a separate build tree
>> yet gives the same build tree example
>> first
> 
> 
> IIRC, this was discussed in the past, and we decided to leave it as it is 
> now.  I don't see anything wrong with the current structure: after all, 
> for a typical user, keeping the source directory pristine is not very 
> important.  Those who care will read the recommendation and act upon it.


Point taken, not something to debate this late in the game.


>> o	it doesn't mention building PDF
> 
> 
> This can be easily added.  Should I do that?


Yes please.


> P.S.  Somebody should make sure the PDF version indeed can be built with 
> the popular version(s) of PDFTeX, before we advertise that.


Oh, great :-)  How many are there?  Looks like all the machines I have 
access to have teTeX (of one varity or another) installed.  That 
includes sources which is used for the nightly PDF snapshots.

	Andrew

Re: 5.1 README

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> >> o	it doesn't mention building PDF
> > 
> > This can be easily added.  Should I do that?
> 
> Yes please.

Done.

> > P.S.  Somebody should make sure the PDF version indeed can be built with 
> > the popular version(s) of PDFTeX, before we advertise that.
> 
> 
> Oh, great :-)  How many are there?  Looks like all the machines I have 
> access to have teTeX (of one varity or another) installed.

I think this is enough, especially since we've decided to require
Texinfo 4.0.

(Personally, I like DviPDFm better than PDFTeX, since production of DVI 
files is normally less prone to problems, and DviPDFm has never failed to 
produce a PDF file from a valid DVI.)