merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete

[Phil Edwards]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 02:00:16PM +0100, Markus Werle wrote:
> I think the only possible way to a gcc/binutils is still;
> 
> build binutils without gcc or with old-gcc
> build gcc using those binutils
> build binutils with new gcc

They can be unified.  They can be built simultaneously.  I do it all
the time.

Every 24 hours, as a matter of fact, at 3:01AM, thanks to cron.  :-)


> b) Please remove misleading documentation!!! Nothing worse than that.
>    Better have no docs than those found on the webpage, really.
>    It is too expensive to follow such a rubbish all the time.
>    How do You want me to convince my colleagues/enterprise
>    to use free software? I never found a gnu package where the docs were
>    permanently outdated/wrong to such an extent like for gcc (except KDE
>    maybe)

That particular page has been unchanged for six and a half months.
And while it isn't my direct responsibility, I don't recall hearing any
problems about it before now.  You are the first person to bring this up,
and thank you for doing so.  (*That's* how the docs get updated; *that's*
how free software works.  You spot a problem that others have not seen,
and report it. :-)



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.