From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16559 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2013 20:48:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16492 invoked by uid 89); 26 Mar 2013 20:48:37 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_BF autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f50.google.com) (209.85.220.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:48:33 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id bg2so1807771pad.37 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=xtl98Meplk2dkuDO/K33Y22lOLugJqXzFR9h60sq/yM=; b=ZoE/2H7aNtJWYNuoILuu1JIho6VW65TfvZmY2hBG6h0iEQCIKaJzc4fteg3EpIvsjR 5C4O4zMMZKREGczvbW8hl8LWptFbV8oay5EuTVVrH1oe6NBqFuLuhQU1iH0fIKyQ8fGZ 5nDCrOLALVQErTmzQjYLdlcU3A9nth5/COvwbUJIm2Sp+pKQu9eluw+14MoHjRubp+cR FdxsIlhTq0JMqhrKE+mvPYeIE0swFRb+eRBKJZNTuSkJanSV2MKblw5MO/Xu1xjA5CTq Jm3YdgVMIkgZADZH7h7FUYIK/pxpJ4aeQdZVKcaXHoP5DzEopSdw3gogLZgM/DpgcE3x uqkQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.135.136 with SMTP id ps8mr25026167pbb.2.1364330912139; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.36.40 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <511A35DC.7060207@ubuntu.com> <51225EBE.1050509@ubuntu.com> <5151FF27.6040606@ubuntu.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ping] Re: [patch] [libffi] do not install libffi library, headers and documentation From: Anthony Green To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Matthias Klose , Andrew Haley , Tom Tromey , GCC Patches , GCJ-patches , "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJcnt1VZ23K+ieTY72Nmi7cP6Lzckfx0qqaRCrI52q/gsVkrt86W0dcTAEAuCM07m80ai5 X-SW-Source: 2013-q1/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 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 wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Matthias Klose 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 wrote: >>>> Am 12.02.2013 13:45, schrieb Richard Biener: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Matthias Klose 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 >>>> >>