Re: [ping] Re: [patch] [libffi] do not install libffi library, headers and documentation

[Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>]

For what it's worth, this patch is fine by me.  I had originally
proposed that GCC not install these bits.

As far as maintainers go, I thought that I was once listed in the
MAINTAINERS file.  Feel free to add Andrew Haley and/or myself.

Thanks,

Anthony Green

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> [ping, adding the GCJ and Go maintainers]
>>
>> proposed patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00853.html
>
> As far as I know this won't affect Go.  So it's fine with me.  But I'd
> rather see this approved by a libffi maintainer.  But there is no
> libffi maintainer listed in MAINTAINERS.  Hmmm.
>
> Ian
>
>
>> Am 19.02.2013 10:13, schrieb Richard Biener:
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>> Am 12.02.2013 13:45, schrieb Richard Biener:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener
>>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The libffi library, headers and documentation are still installed, although
>>>>>>> libffi provides separate releases for a long time.  So do not install these
>>>>>>> anymore as part of a GCC install.  Tested with a build and an install with go
>>>>>>> and java enabled (both using libffi_convenience). Ok for the trunk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> openSUSE is using the GCC provided libffi, so no, this is not ok (not at this
>>>>>> stage anyway).  Also proper not-installing libffi would work by disabling
>>>>>> the maybe-install-target-libffi at the toplevel, not changing libffi makfiles
>>>>>> (which are supposed to be imported from upstream, no?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, add no_install= true; to the libffi target module
>>>>
>>>> updated patch attached, checked with a make install that no ffi headers and
>>>> libraries are installed. If not ok for 4.8, ok for 4.9 when it opens?
>>>
>>> I'm fine with that variant but I'd like to see another ok.  No preference as to
>>> whether to target 4.8 or 4.9.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>>   Matthias
>>>>
>>