Subject: re: gcc/binutils/gdb import proposal
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/17/2000 13:58:25
: everything else looks great, though i don't really get the point of
: moving everything in to usr.bin/binutils...i'd just get rid of the
: binutils directory there entirely. i think, in particular, moving
: GDB there is wrong.
Well, I wanted at least to group those things found in a distribution. What
prompted me to move gdb inside was that it uses libbfd (and comes
from the same Redhat source tree); we've already run into users who forget
to build bfd before binutils, gas.new, ld.new, and gdb.
it's wrong to refer to it as a "redhat source tree". it's the
"sources.redhat.com" source tree, if anything, and that is maintained by
many folks, some of who work for redhat, but AFAIK, literally hundreds of
other people have (some sort of) commit privs to that source tree.
It's... awkward, I'll admit, but as long as gdb comes with a "don't forget
to build libbfd!!" warning, it can go outside gnu/usr.bin/binutils.
we have these sorts of issues elsewhere in our tree. the correct way
to build NetBSD is to `make build' in /usr/src. i'm not sure this is
a justification for putting gdb under binutils. and gas/ld there is
strange -- they aren't in a "redhat source tree", but they are part of
the binutils package. the grouping you have here just seems inconsistent
(except for "all bfd using programs" bit, which i don't think applies).
but i really don't care too much :-)