This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Reapply patch lost during recent "blind import" of libtool
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: Reapply patch lost during recent "blind import" of libtool
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 11 Apr 2001 17:42:34 -0300
- Cc: rittle at rsch dot comm dot mot dot com, rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <200104110555.f3B5ttM56238@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com><20010410231936P.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
On Apr 11, 2001, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Loren" == Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> writes:
Loren> However, I do blame our policy of allowing "blind imports"
> I don't know that we have such a policy, except for a few things (like
> config.guess) that are never changed in the GCC tree itself.
> I agree with you that we shouldn't be doing blind imports in general.
> In this particular case, I would have much preferred that the libtool
> upgrade be done using the usual cvs/rcs merge techniques, rather than
> simply the "blind import" method.
I'd much rather have local annotations of GCC-local changes, if
they're at all needed. I did look for such marks before importing the
new version of libtool, and found none.
I'll check in Loren's patch in the libtool tree, and then update the
copy of these files in the GCC version, from the libtool CVS tree.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me