>    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?


it's not really any different; it just removes a step that isn't
really required.  ie, you get to check out & build them together,
rather than as two entirely separate phases of the build.


.mrg.