On Wed Jul  5 15:50:24 2000, Todd Vierling wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> 
> : > If you're subscribed to source-changes, you'll see an import of gcc 2.95.2
> : > on Friday into src/gnu/gcc-2.95/dist.  There are some points to note about
> : > this import, which are listed here to solicit objections or modifications:
> : 
> : Why not import it under src/gnu/dist/gcc-2.95?
> : That way you don't pollute the gnu directory.
> 
> Actually, I'm modifying it to be
> src/gnu/usr.bin/gcc-2.95/{dist,cc1,gcc,etc}.  The separation *away from*
> src/gnu/dist as a shared dist directory addresses two points:
> 
> - Last time egcs was imported, people bitched because of how big the source
>   tree was with two compilers in-tree.  This will allow someone to nuke the
>   whole compiler in one shot, or exclude it from CVS updates with a single
>   operation.  If you recall, the old gcc 2.7 was in
>   src/gnu/usr.bin/gcc (though it didn't use a dist directory).

I don't see this a big problem. You can also exlude gnu/dist/gcc-2.95 or
gnu/dist/gcc, so there is no big difference (the Makefiles in gnu/usr.bin
are small compared to the dist files).

And you are now adding a 3rd dist directory, we currently have two:
- one for gnu software
- and one for the rest

I don't think it is a good idea to start another dist structure in gnu.

> - This keeps the BSD makefiles a little closer to the dist tree, which is

?

You allready need to declare where you have your source, so it shouldn't
make a difference when you just put the dist directory further up.

>   what a lot of other software already does in the tree.  gnu/dist is,
>   IMHO, a good idea for certain things (were binutils and gcc to work
>   together nicely), but not for some of the things we've put in there,
>   such as gawk and sed.  In retrospect, these programs should have had
>   their own `dist' directories.

Or binutils and gcc should have put into there own directory under dist,
but they were the first ones which used 'dist'.

Bernd