From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7905 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2001 19:40:06 -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 7834 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2001 19:40:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO navy.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 19:40:02 -0000 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ident=mail) by navy.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16BLQ5-0004jo-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 19:39:57 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16BLQ5-0006Me-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 19:39:57 +0000 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:40:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Zack Weinberg cc: Geert Bosch , Corey Minyard , Subject: Re: Ada build now requires gnatmake? In-Reply-To: <20011204192241.GG19450@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > Yes, you're right. I have checked in a patch to einfo.ads and forgot > > to update the dependent sources, and sinced I have gnatmake on my > > system this didn't show up during bootstrap. I'll fix this and think > > about ways to ensure this doesn't happen again. > > I thought the generated files had been taken out of CVS? 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. 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. It may not be documented, but I claim that the rules should be: * Generated files are included in CVS iff they are not removed in maintainer-clean. * Any generated files needed to run configure and start building the distribution are included in CVS (per the GNU Coding Standards on maintainer-clean). Other generated files are only included in CVS if they are needed for build and we feel that the necessary tools to regenerate them are sufficiently obscure or non-portable, or the requirements for a specific version of them too restrictive, that people using CVS should not be expected to have them installed. * The requirements for people building from snapshots are the same as those for building from CVS. * Where possible, architecture-independent generated files should be included in release tarballs rather than requiring additional tools to be installed by people building releases. This includes Info files, generated man pages, Bison-generated files and compiled message catalogs. If the Makefiles put these files in the build directory, then the release script must move them to the source directory, and the Makefiles must be able to handle both cases (of the files in the source directory, and of them in the build directory) when installing or using the generated files. (The only example currently moved by the release script is that of compiled message catalogs; the others mentioned get built in the source directory.) -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk