This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:02:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
- References: <20030601191930.GC5311@daikokuya.co.uk><3EDA597E.5020002@student.tudelft.nl>
Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:
> Neil Booth wrote:
>
>>Following a brief discussion with rth at the summit, and just
>>now on IRC, I thought I'd post what the current plan is.
>>
>>1) Create a directory fe/
>>2) Create a directory fe/c/
>>3) Move c-specific and C common files, like c-lex.c, there.
>>4) Move objc/ to fe/ too.
>>
>>I originally suggested fe/c/c/ fe/c/cp/ and fe/c/objc, but Zack
>>thought that was overkill and made configury harder, though I
>>still like the separation myself.
I do kind of like the separation, but look carefully at the loops in
configure.in that scan for config-lang.in files ...
> Can this be done without losing revision history? IIRC there was a
> thread about a year and a half ago about this, and the argument
> against it was that you'd lose all that information, and that we
> therefore should wait until sources.redhat moves from CVS to
> subversions.
There is no good way to do it in CVS, true. I personally think we
should just deal. As Neil points out, Subversion[1] is not ready for
prime time, nor are any of the other CVS replacements out there.
(The Subversion folks have managed to write a version control system
that is slower than CVS. They have a sane network protocol, so I
don't have a clue how they managed this.)
zw
[1] "subversions" is the FSF-hosted CVS server; "Subversion" is a CVS
replacement being developed by Collab.net and others.