Binutils/GDB release tarball building process is substantially
different and I'm not familiar with it.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
;http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01674.html>, but there was
pushback on that. I don't know, however, if it actually depends on
anything built into automake.
> - The check target doesn't depend on all.
I'm not aware of a need for that.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
ed way
to achieve each part of the effect of "cygnus", if still desired (I think
avoiding info documentation being built in the source directory, so that
builds could use a non-writable source directory, may have been one part).
Is there better transition documentati
s, we should not do so in Automake!
>
> Rather, one GNU package could drop support for ordinary Make, and see
> how users react. If the level of complaint is not too high, then
GCC dropped support for non-GNU make in version 3.4 (April 2004).
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
n auto* for this
feature rather than each package needing to do it locally.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
t seems that I have to do the same?!
Refer to how fastjar (which used automake) worked with
--enable-generated-files-in-srcdir before it was removed from the GCC
source tree.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ow
if the linker supports -- as would be required), or rewriting the command
as the equivalent
gcc ./-foo.c ./-lbar
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ining arguments that they pass unchanged.
>
> Which unfortunately does not work since gcc interprets -- as an ambigous
> abbreviation instead of the end-of-option-marker.
This is a GCC bug; please enter it in GCC Bugzilla if not already there.
--
Joseph S. Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
