From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10102 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2004 19:59:30 -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 10095 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2004 19:59:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.79) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Sep 2004 19:59:30 -0000 Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23]) by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7B0DAFB; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06576; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i8EJxKi05352; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:59:20 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:18:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: DJ Delorie Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Obsolete building in source dir? Message-ID: <20040914125920.A4704@synopsys.com> References: <00f801c497a2$e2deb9c0$92b92997@bagio> <20040914121705.A32238@synopsys.com> <200409141943.i8EJhpx2017814@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200409141943.i8EJhpx2017814@greed.delorie.com>; from dj@redhat.com on Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:43:51PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00886.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:43:51PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > > Since every other source package on the planet (it seems) supports > > > building in the source directory, gcc should too. To do otherwise > > > would require an SC decision, as it would make gcc incompatible with > > > everything else. > > > > The SC cannot force people to submit patches to fix the problem; > > building in the source directory has been at least partially broken > > for years. > > The SC decision is "do we *want* to support building in srcdir, or > should we reject such attempts?" Once we know what the SC wants, we > can find someone to make the changes (probably me). I would consider it a technical matter, not a big enough issue for the SC to step in. So s/SC/GWP maintainers/. If folks with the authority to approve patches like your patches, cool. I'm not intent on using the SC to browbeat them into it if they consider that too many kludges are required.