Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog doc/install.texi

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

--On Tuesday, April 16, 2002 01:35:06 PM -0400 DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> 
wrote:

>
>> Now, Phil's patch, with a minor change or two, would allow you to say:
>>
>>   "./configure; make"
>
> You can say that now, without Phil's patch.

(Modulo my objection -- namely that it won't work on most systems without
GCC as the system compiler.  Is it fair to say you don't consider this
a serious problem?)

>> Why does it matter what little hidden directories get made along the
>> way, or where the object files go?  It seems to me that the *interface*
>> is much more important; that supporting the "natural way to build
>> a project" is what we're after.  Do you agree?
>
> Sorry, no.  In the event that something happens to the build, J Random
> User is going to expect that "./configure" puts the objects in with
> the sources, just like every other project.

OK, at least now I understand what it is you don't like.  But, what is
J Random (we're on a first-name basis :-)) going to do with the objects
anyhow?  The build failed.  He's going to go download a binary package,
use his support contract, email us, or give up in disgust. :-)

Now, J Random Hacker (a cousin of J R. User), might be confused; he wants
to try to fix the problem and he will be confused.  But, he'll poke around
a little and figure it out.  He's a got a lot harder hurdles than that
to overcome if he's going to figure out how to fix whatever problem he's
really facing.  And if the Makefiles we're easier to understand he'd
have a better chance at doing it.

To me, helping J. Random User means doing our best to make the sequence
works in the first place.  If it builds correctly, he'll never go looking
to see where we put the object files.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com