Re: initial patch to install libiberty headers

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 07:14:01PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Okay; spelled how?
> 
> If it were me, I'd allow these:
> 	--install-libiberty
> 	--install-libiberty=[yes|no] (uses $prefix)
> 	--install-libiberty=/path    (overrides $prefix)

I was kind of hoping to keep the names in the set usable with autoconf
macros, and --install-* isn't in that set, I think.  The yes/no/path thing
works well, though.

The libiberty/configure.in also contains a number of "uncomment this
whenever we move to autoconf / automake / libtool" notes.  Perhaps it's
time to head in that direction?


> > Such as?  (For inclusion into the liberty manual; I'm not doubting you.)
> 
> If you install gcc, gdb, and binutils, they each install their own
> version of libiberty.  Which is the correct one?  The fact that
> libiberty comes with so many packages (from different branches in the
> worst case) as a helper makes it a bad idea to install it by default.

Oh, that.  Yeah, the --install-libiberty (however we spell it) should
remain off by default, period.  The gdb, binutils, etc, sources won't have
to change.  If we like it, then gcc (and only gcc) can know to pass the
installing option down.

That assumes that libiberty will not become a standalone package, which
seems likely.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.