RFC: Moving C to its own directory

Zack Weinberg zack@codesourcery.com
Sun Jun 1 20:02:00 GMT 2003


Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:

> Neil Booth wrote:
>
>>Following a brief discussion with rth at the summit, and just
>>now on IRC, I thought I'd post what the current plan is.
>>
>>1) Create a directory fe/
>>2) Create a directory fe/c/
>>3) Move c-specific and C common files, like c-lex.c, there.
>>4) Move objc/ to fe/ too.
>>
>>I originally suggested fe/c/c/ fe/c/cp/ and fe/c/objc, but Zack
>>thought that was overkill and made configury harder, though I
>>still like the separation myself.

I do kind of like the separation, but look carefully at the loops in
configure.in that scan for config-lang.in files ...

> Can this be done without losing revision history? IIRC there was a
> thread about a year and a half ago about this, and the argument
> against it was that you'd lose all that information, and that we
> therefore should wait until sources.redhat moves from CVS to
> subversions.

There is no good way to do it in CVS, true.  I personally think we
should just deal.  As Neil points out, Subversion[1] is not ready for
prime time, nor are any of the other CVS replacements out there.

(The Subversion folks have managed to write a version control system
that is slower than CVS.  They have a sane network protocol, so I
don't have a clue how they managed this.)

zw

[1] "subversions" is the FSF-hosted CVS server; "Subversion" is a CVS
replacement being developed by Collab.net and others.



More information about the Gcc mailing list