Installation proposal

[mike stump]

> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:04:06 -0800
> From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
> To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
> CC: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>

> My suggestion:

> (1) configure creates a 'build' sub-directory at the top-level,
> parallel to 'gcc', libstdc++', etc.  The Makefiles call this
> directory $build_prefix.

I like this approach.  One can do as small a job as they want, and it
will be self-consistent.  A multitude of people can work in parallel.
The semantics of make all and make install are clear and unchanged.
One can start this at any level and do as much or as little a job as
they care to.  The risk of this approach is lower, and the end result
I think it the same or superior.  Do the objections against the
original apply to this methodology?  Any new objections against this
methodology?