From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23819 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2001 19:56:12 -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 23752 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2001 19:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 19:56:09 -0000 Received: from darwin (DARWIN.GNAT.COM [205.232.38.44]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A23F286A; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:55:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:56:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Ada build now requires gnatmake? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v475) Cc: Zack Weinberg , Corey Minyard , To: "Joseph S. Myers" From: Geert Bosch In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I thought the generated files had been taken out of CVS? No, IIRC the opinion was that these files should stay checked in, at least for now. On Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 02:39 , Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > I thought that the generated files were now mentioned in > contrib/gcc_update, so if you update with that or use > contrib/gcc_update > --touch after updating you shouldn't see the problem. I once submitted a patch for that, but never got feedback and I thought it might be OBE. I'll check whether sources are automatically updated and if not propose a patch for that. This will have to wait until next week though, so if anybody wants to have a look at it before, that would be great. > At some point after 3.1 we might then decide that gnatmake is a > tool that > people building Ada from CVS (and people building release > distributions) > need to have installed, remove the files from CVS and gcc_update, make > "make maintainer-clean" remove them, and arrange for the release > script to > put them in the source directory if the build puts them in the build > directory. This seems like a good approach to me. -Geert