This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] install.texi (again): successful bootstrap instructions
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:08:49PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > Tested with make info and make dvi; OK for mainline and 3.1 branch?
>
> If you don't mind I'd like to suggest a minor change, namely...
>
> > -If you built a released version of GCC then if you don't mind, please
> > +If you bootstrapped a released version of GCC then if you don't mind, please
>
> ...let's omit the "if you don't mind" here.
Sure.
> And one question: Do you think "bootstrap" is preferrable to "build" in
> general? I'm asking, because we use the term "build" most of the time in
> these intructions, e.g. one of the generated web pages is called
> "build.html", and I'm not so sure whether "bootstrap" better reflects
> reality than "build" as far as libraries (libstdc++, libjava,...) are
> concerned.
In this part of the documentation I wanted to make it clear that we want
to hear about success using "make bootstrap", not a simple "make" (the
build status list doesn't apply to cross builds). Perhaps instead the
final installation instructions could say something like:
If you built a released version of GCC using "make bootstrap", please
...
and the top of the build status page could say:
Instructions for reporting a successful "make bootstrap", ...
I'd be happy using "bootstrap" once instead of replacing all instances
of "build", as I originally proposed for these sections.
Janis