Home Original page

On the toplevel configure and build system

Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org
Thu Mar 31 07:46:00 GMT 2011 
On 03/30/2011 05:54 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Thanks.  My inclination is to say that this should be considered an
> independent tool in its own repository, as something not required in the
> build of any of the other tools.  More specifically, utils/mep and
> utils/wince look like independent tools each of which would better go in
> its own toplevel directory (mep-integrator, cesetup) (and would each go in
> an independent repository based on the shared toplevel, since they use
> libiberty), while utils/spu appears to have no toplevel dependencies and
> so should be completely independent, possibly without toplevel support for
> building it.  Since utils/spu and utils/wince have no non-build-system
> changes since 2000, I'd be inclined to say we should declare those two
> subdirectories dead and run "cvs rm" on them - people wanting to resurrect
> them can always extract the data from CVS later.  (And I still think
> utils/mep should move to its own toplevel directory.)

No, these tools _are_ built after all.

However, moving them to a new toplevel directory and getting rid of 
utils would be a good thing.

Paolo
More information about the Binutils mailing list