libiberty (was Re: merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete)

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

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:24:46AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Philip Blundell wrote:
> 
> > The problems that people have building binutils and gcc in a single tree 
> > almost never stem from issues related to binutils itself, but rather from the 
> > fact that binutils and gcc have historically used slightly divergent versions 
> > of `libiberty' and `include'.  I think things are rather better in this 
> 
> I'd say the "right" solution for this is to make libiberty an independent
> GNU package (with frequent releases and a documented interface), separate

I've been working on installation and documention.  Separating the headers
is a bit more than what I want to tackle right now.  On my todo stack is
cleaning up the documentation and posting it.

Part of the problem is that libiberty is built multiple times under
different conditions.  Its makefile can't easily be autoconfiscated.


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.