Re: improve install-no-fixedincludes Makefile target

[Olivier Hainque <hainque at adacore dot com>]

Hello Ralf,

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Isn't the fact that such breakage is encountered a sign that this:
> 
> >   # [...] This rule is very
> >   # dependent on the workings of the gcc Makefile.in.
> 
> simply isn't such a good idea?

> IOW, why is the toplevel rule gcc-no-fixedincludes not merely a forwarder
> for an install-no-fixedincludes in gcc/Makefile.in, where that at least
> allows to keep the logic closer to the stmp-int-hdrs and similar rules?

> Otherwise, I guess things are bound to break again in the future.

 The toplevel target probably could be a forwarder, I agree.  That
 alone wouldn't change much the necessary twists to achieve the goal,
 but indeed would keep them local to the gcc subdir organisation.
 
 I'll prepare an updated patch along these lines.

> Also, would it be possible to build the right set of headers right away,
> or, rather, the headers in the right way right away (sorry for the pun)?

> Maybe with some --disable-fixed-headers or so?
> (I may be missing something here, so thanks for any hints.)

 Humm, I don't think that would simplify because we need the 'fixed'
 set of headers to build the libraries anyway. And we often really need
 them for other installation purposes as well.

 A typical need is "make install" for local installations, and
 "make install-no-fixedincludes" to setup a binary tree suitable
 for distribution.

 Thanks for your feedback,

 Olivier