From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4001 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 17:07:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3981 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 17:07:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.73.237.138) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 17:07:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 19696 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 17:06:16 -0000 Received: from egil.codesourcery.com (HELO taltos.codesourcery.com) (zack@66.92.14.122) by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 17:06:16 -0000 Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:06:02 -0700 From: "Zack Weinberg" To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <877k70yi2t.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 In the GCC CVS, the local copy of libintl lives in gcc/intl, and is a slightly hacked version of gettext 0.10.40, which dates to 2000. In the binutils/GDB CVS, the local copy of libintl lives in the top-level intl directory, and dates to 1998; I do not see a version number anywhere. For entirely unrelated reasons I need to put the gcc libintl at the top level. I think it would be a good idea to update both copies to the latest upstream release, that is 0.12.1, at the same time. I will need to rewrite the Makefile for that directory nearly from scratch, and make drastic modifications to the configury, in order to support building libintl in a directory that is _not_ a subdirectory of the directory with the code that uses it. However, I expect that it will not be necessary to modify the C source code at all. I'd like to do this today, and commit to both gcc and src CVS as soon as I've tested it; it is blocking another major change over in gcc land, which needs to happen this week. Will this be okay? Does anyone know a reason why upgrading to 0.12.1 is a bad idea? zw