On 3/8/07, Peter Memishian <peter.memishian at sun.com> wrote: > > > > > The one reason I can think of to keep them is that they provide some > > > > clues about how ksh93 is built using the ATT toolset. So, for > example, > > > > if we run into problems, they provide a comparison point. And if the > > > > upstream version changes, the diffs for the ATT makefile may be useful > > > > in constructing the changes to the ON makefile. > > > > > > Can't we get the diffs for the ATT Makefiles regardless of whether we > have > > > copies of them lying around in our tree? > > > > What do you mean with "diffs" in this case ? > > I meant the difference between one ATT Makefile and another. > > > destination files would act like a bomb in this case and we have to > > manually strip the diff or someone invent a new type of exception > > handling (renaming parts of the diff files would be slightly easier...). > > Since applying those diffs has no direct effect on the binaries built by > our source tree anyway (even if we kept the ATT Makefiles), someone is > going to need to manually make the corresponding changes to ON's Makefiles > (if changes are even appropriate).
Let's ignore the ATT Makefiles for a while. Are there other files you'd like to see removed? A list based on Roland's annotated list would be nice. Irek
