On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:17:07AM +1000, matthew green wrote:

 >    I think I'm going to stick with the original idea, here, because
 >    I suspect uberbaum has a lot more gunk in it than we probably need.
 > 
 > i don't see what the issue is.  just check out "gcc" and "binutils"?
 > any extra gunk in uberbaum is already in the gcc and/or binutils CVS
 > trees...

If I'm going to just check out "gcc" and "bintuils" separately from
uberbaum, how is this any different in practice than what I first
proposed?

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>