merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete

[Philip Blundell]

>I prefer (b) - that is, the interfaces to allow binutils to be built in a
>single tree should be documented (and I hope you'll be able to assist with
>this documentation), but if GCC starts linking against BFD (say) then it
>should use public interfaces to allow linking against any BFD in a given
>version range, either an installed BFD or a stable BFD release imported

The problems that people have building binutils and gcc in a single tree 
almost never stem from issues related to binutils itself, but rather from the 
fact that binutils and gcc have historically used slightly divergent versions 
of `libiberty' and `include'.  I think things are rather better in this 
department than they used to be, and it will probably be easier to meld (say) 
gcc 3.0 and binutils 2.11 into a single tree than it was for binutils 2.10.1 
and gcc 2.95.3.

p.