On 10/24/08 09:16, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>
>
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Your confusing "build dependencies" with "delivery".
>
> No, i am not. Please read my explanation again. I believe it was
> pretty clear the first time around.
Not to me it wasn't. The statement you made was that you were
delivering binutils *first*, because of the fact that in order to build
gcc with --configure, you needed to supply paths to gas, etc.
What I said is, that problem is a build dependency problem. You could
deliver the final bits together (which IMO is the right thing to do if
this case is primarily being done for benefit of gcc.)
I'll also stand by Darren's comments... if you have this kind of
dependency that is driving decisions in this case, then we need to see
the entire case work for the big picture. That means that you probably
need to submit a case for gcc4.
IMO, it would probably be easiest to just *withdraw* this case, and
submit a single combined case for gcc4 and any required binutils updates
together.
-- Garrett
