>>>>> "Mo" == Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mo> On 28 Jun 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> OK, I see. I was still under the impression that Cygnus was
>> wrapping the trees, I had not understood users were likely to
>> assemble trees.
Mo> When a user downloads gcc, it already has a configure script that
Mo> was generated and checked into the CVS. Besides, how would a user
Mo> regen a configure script without having autoconf installed? If
Mo> you are talking about a regen with an older version of autoconf
Mo> then folks could not do that, but I do not see what this has to do
Mo> with anything.
No no, I thought users would ask Cygnus to build the full tree, so I
though it Cygnus had the ability to synchronize the configures of a
whole tree.
Now I understand Cygnus does not package forest (let's call it a
forest, since I believe we didn't understand each other because I used
`tree' while referring to GCC + GDB + Binutils etc., while it seems to
be understood as a single package as GDB).
So, now that I understand that users get trees from Cygnus, and
assemble the forests by themselves, I understand the arguments.
>> Do you think there is really a chance that in a not so distant
>> future, in this galaxy, we will reimplement the behavior we have in
>> CVS? I fear we will never be able to, for instance because of the
>> build defaulting to host.
Mo> If you go back to the old way of doing it, then I doubt it will
Mo> ever get changed. Folks are going to trot out the same old "It is
Mo> just wrong to change it, we have been doing it this way for years"
Mo> argument and you are right back where you started.
I share you pessi^H^H^H^H^H impression. At least, if it is not the
best, it is much better.
