Re: auto-sync of top-level 'include' & 'config' directories?

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

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 08:54:28PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Note that the "src" repo has some stuff in "include" that don't exist in
> > the "gcc" repo -- most of them are related to bfd, the opcodes library and
> > such.  There's no reason why GCC couldn't import those files to minimize
> > the amount of divergence between the repos.
> 
> There's a good reason why not.  If they were merged, all the bfd folks
> would need gcc's blessing to change bfd-specific files that gcc
> doesn't care about (why should a change to include/elf/m32r.h need a
> GCC maintainer's approval?).  There are a few that could be added to
> libiberty's umbrella, like filenames.h, but that's a different story.

Why aren't the bfd-specific files in the bfd directory?


> And there's no reason *to* merge them (well, unless we merge the cvs
> repositories).  It's alreadly auto-merged, so there is no cost to
> keeping them the way they are.
> 
> The include files that *are* common between gcc and src *are* in sync.
> They are part of the libiberty auto-sync process.  They've been in
> sync since I got libiberty maintainership.

Okay.  What about the top-level config directory?


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams