RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1

RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1

[Zack Weinberg]

In the GCC CVS, the local copy of libintl lives in gcc/intl, and is a
slightly hacked version of gettext 0.10.40, which dates to 2000.  In
the binutils/GDB CVS, the local copy of libintl lives in the top-level
intl directory, and dates to 1998; I do not see a version number
anywhere.

For entirely unrelated reasons I need to put the gcc libintl at the
top level.  I think it would be a good idea to update both copies to
the latest upstream release, that is 0.12.1, at the same time.  I will
need to rewrite the Makefile for that directory nearly from scratch,
and make drastic modifications to the configury, in order to support
building libintl in a directory that is _not_ a subdirectory of the
directory with the code that uses it.  However, I expect that it will
not be necessary to modify the C source code at all.

I'd like to do this today, and commit to both gcc and src CVS
as soon as I've tested it; it is blocking another major change
over in gcc land, which needs to happen this week.  Will this be
okay?  Does anyone know a reason why upgrading to 0.12.1 is a bad idea?

zw

Re: RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1

[Andrew Cagney]

Sounds like an update is long overdue.

> I'd like to do this today, and commit to both gcc and src CVS
> as soon as I've tested it; it is blocking another major change
> over in gcc land, which needs to happen this week.  Will this be
> okay?  Does anyone know a reason why upgrading to 0.12.1 is a bad idea?

Can you two stage this - import into GCC, and then a week or so later, 
import in to SRC?  That way the group with the most to gain (and 
apparently the greatest urgency) experience the most pain :-)

Andrew

Re: RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1

[Zack Weinberg]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

>> I'd like to do this today, and commit to both gcc and src CVS
>> as soon as I've tested it; it is blocking another major change
>> over in gcc land, which needs to happen this week.  Will this be
>> okay?  Does anyone know a reason why upgrading to 0.12.1 is a bad idea?
>
> Can you two stage this - import into GCC, and then a week or so later,
> import in to SRC?  That way the group with the most to gain (and
> apparently the greatest urgency) experience the most pain :-)

I could do that; it will mean that for one week people who construct
combined trees have to be careful with the intl directory, but that
should be ok, yes?

zw

Re: RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:55:29AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> I could do that; it will mean that for one week people who construct
> combined trees have to be careful with the intl directory, but that
> should be ok, yes?

Depends on what "careful" means.  If it's just a matter of always using
the GCC copy, that should be fine.

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams

Re: RFC: Moving gcc/intl to toplevel; syncing both copies to 0.12.1

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>> I'd like to do this today, and commit to both gcc and src CVS
>>> as soon as I've tested it; it is blocking another major change
>>> over in gcc land, which needs to happen this week.  Will this be
>>> okay?  Does anyone know a reason why upgrading to 0.12.1 is a bad idea?
> 
>>
>> Can you two stage this - import into GCC, and then a week or so later,
>> import in to SRC?  That way the group with the most to gain (and
>> apparently the greatest urgency) experience the most pain :-)
> 
> 
> I could do that;

Thanks!  How does this stand with binutils?

Andrew