public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
@ 2010-02-21 16:26 rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:28 ` [Bug other/43132] " rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-21 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
Since the update to Autoconf >= 2.60, the installation directory defaults
do not match the GNU Coding Standards, nor do they match the semantics
documented in the manual. The problems are described in more detail in
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg00696.html>.
Opening this bug so that this is not forgotten.
--
Summary: installation directory defaults do not match
documentation, Coding Standards
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-21 16:28 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:29 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-21 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 16:28 -------
*** Bug 43134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:28 ` [Bug other/43132] " rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-21 16:29 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 17:27 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-21 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-02-21 16:29:16
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:28 ` [Bug other/43132] " rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:29 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-21 17:27 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-22 21:39 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-21 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 17:27 -------
I think one way to start addressing this would be to transport an unexpanded
docdir='${datarootdir}/doc/${PACKAGE}'
through to the sub makes (it's fairly irrelevant whether datarootdir is
expanded
in the toplevel or not, ${PACKAGE} is important so that it can vary between the
different components of the tree.
Right now I don't see how to escape this thing properly so it gets through the
toplevel machinery.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-21 17:27 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-22 21:39 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-22 23:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de @ 2010-02-22 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2010-02-22 21:39 -------
Not sure if this can be qualified a regression, but still, making a
release manager aware of this can't hurt, I guess.
--
Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-22 21:39 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
@ 2010-02-22 23:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-23 6:01 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-22 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-22 23:23 -------
I don't think this should be P1, as getting the old behavior is apparently
doable by hand, but I'm a big fan of backwards-compatibility and if the GCS
haven't been updated then I think that GCC (as a GNU package) ought to try to
follow that.
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-22 23:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-23 6:01 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-24 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de @ 2010-02-23 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2010-02-23 06:01 -------
Well, the GCS did change, and we did (mostly) update the default locations to
follow. However, as of now, the override methods don't all work the way the
configure --help output promises, and not all documentation gets put in
directories containing a coherent expansion of ${PACKAGE}.
Anyway, not marking this as regression then. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-23 6:01 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
@ 2010-02-24 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-24 18:19 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-25 20:53 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-24 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-24 16:28 -------
Ralf --
I think the key question here is whether it is possible to build/install a new
version of GCC, getting the same directory layout as was the default in
previous versions. It's OK if it takes command-line options, but I think it
should be *possible*. If not, then I think it is a regression.
Do you know the answer?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-24 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-24 18:19 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-25 20:53 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de @ 2010-02-24 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de 2010-02-24 18:19 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the key question here is whether it is possible to build/install a new
> version of GCC, getting the same directory layout as was the default in
> previous versions. It's OK if it takes command-line options, but I think it
> should be *possible*. If not, then I think it is a regression.
I'm fairly certain that it is possible to get the old layout back using
command-line options, but that, too, should be documented in changes.html (PR
43133). I'll try it to make sure, though, and report back.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/43132] installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-24 18:19 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
@ 2010-02-25 20:53 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-25 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-25 20:53 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think one way to start addressing this would be to transport an unexpanded
> docdir='${datarootdir}/doc/${PACKAGE}'
>
> through to the sub makes (it's fairly irrelevant whether datarootdir is
> expanded
> in the toplevel or not, ${PACKAGE} is important so that it can vary between the
> different components of the tree.
>
> Right now I don't see how to escape this thing properly so it gets through the
> toplevel machinery.
>
Maybe Paolo has a good idea (or alternative) for this, let's CC him.
--
rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bonzini at gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43132
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-25 20:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-21 16:26 [Bug other/43132] New: installation directory defaults do not match documentation, Coding Standards rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:28 ` [Bug other/43132] " rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 16:29 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-21 17:27 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-22 21:39 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-22 23:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-23 6:01 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-24 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-24 18:19 ` Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de
2010-02-25 20:53 ` rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).