From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3709 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2002 19:40:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3611 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 19:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.wrs.com) (147.11.1.11) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 19:40:46 -0000 Received: from kankakee.wrs.com (kankakee [147.11.37.13]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03318; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:39:51 -0800 (PST) From: mike stump Received: (from mrs@localhost) by kankakee.wrs.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.0) id LAA03761; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:40:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200202281940.LAA03761@kankakee.wrs.com> To: mark@codesourcery.com, per@bothner.com Subject: Re: Installation proposal Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg01834.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:04:06 -0800 > From: Per Bothner > To: Mark Mitchell > CC: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" > My suggestion: > (1) configure creates a 'build' sub-directory at the top-level, > parallel to 'gcc', libstdc++', etc. The Makefiles call this > directory $build_prefix. I like this approach. One can do as small a job as they want, and it will be self-consistent. A multitude of people can work in parallel. The semantics of make all and make install are clear and unchanged. One can start this at any level and do as much or as little a job as they care to. The risk of this approach is lower, and the end result I think it the same or superior. Do the objections against the original apply to this methodology? Any new objections against this methodology?