Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

[David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/29/2013 02:55 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There should be a better diagnostic.
>>
>> If you remember, the start of this thread was:
>>
>>> Why is it that configure worked but stubs-32.h was not found?
>>
>> That is the correct thing to do.  The reply, basically, was:
>>
>>     It's too hard.
>
> It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important
> to get it right.  We don't want a half-arsed patch."
>
>>>> But we know people are running into this issue and reporting it.
>>> Yes.  But that on its own is not sufficient to change the default
>>
>> That's a pretty obnoxious comment.
>
> Oh dear.
>
>> I translate it as, "I don't care if people are having trouble.
>
> That's a mistranslation.  It means that there are other criteria
> beyond some people having trouble.  Such as, we really want multilibs
> to be built.
>
>> It is a nuisance to me to do that and anyone building GCC should
>> already know they need <whateveritwas>-devel for 32 bits."  I guess
>> I can be obnoxious, too.  But slightly more politely put:
>>
>>> No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to
>>> enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way
>>> through with an obscure error message. Real systems need features that
>>> aren't enabled by default sometimes.
>>
>> The fundamental issue, to me, is: What do you do when you cannot
>> proceed?
>>
>> I think you should detect the issue as *soon as practical* and then
>> *ALWAYS* emit a message that *TELLS THE USER WHAT TO DO*.
>
> Yes!  Yes!  Yes!
>
> Andrew.



-- 
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.