GNU bug report logs - #11034
Removing 'cygnus' mode in the near future

Previous Next

Package: automake;

Reported by: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:03:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Done: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #95 received at 11034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pedro Alves <palves <at> redhat.com>
To: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
Cc: gcc <at> gcc.gnu.org, Roumen Petrov <bugtrack <at> roumenpetrov.info>,
	11034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, gdb <at> sourceware.org,
	Ian Lance Taylor <iant <at> google.com>,
	"automake-patches <at> gnu.org" <automake-patches <at> gnu.org>,
	automake <at> gnu.org, Tom Tromey <tromey <at> redhat.com>, ams <at> gnu.org,
	binutils <at> sourceware.org, joseph <at> codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:39:55 +0100
On 04/03/2012 09:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:

> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'

...
> it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
> "hack!info-in-builddir".  I hope this is acceptable to you.
...
> *undocumented* option '!hack!info-in-builddir' (whose name should
> made it clear that it is not meant for public consumption).

So will this be called a hack forever, or will the naming be revisited
before a release?  IMO, either the feature is sensible, and there doesn't
seem to be a good reason other users couldn't also use it, and hence it
should get a non-hackish name and be documented; or it isn't sensible, and
then it shouldn't exist.  Why the second-class treatment?

-- 
Pedro Alves




This bug report was last modified 13 years and 101 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.