merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Philip Blundell wrote:

> 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 

I'd say the "right" solution for this is to make libiberty an independent
GNU package (with frequent releases and a documented interface), separate
its headers from the other headers in include that binutils uses (perhaps
putting the libiberty ones in libiberty/include, say), and then import
stable releases (which could always be made more than once a day, if
necessary) as required (with new releases always providing a
drop-in-compatible replacement for older ones).  But even without
libiberty being an independent GNU package, separation of headers (with
documentation of what the interface to "include" is meant to be) would
clean up the use of merged trees.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk