On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
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.
On 04/01/2012 10:49 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
References:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11146
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bison/2012-04/msg2.html
On 04/01/2012 03:11 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/01/2012 02:30 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Most
On 04/03/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
[SNIP]
I'll try to explain what I mean again...
I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the
class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint
Changes which, actually, consist just in *bumping a version
On 2012-04-04 11:50, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/03/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
[SNIP]
I'll try to explain what I mean again...
I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the
class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint
Changes which,
On 04/04/2012 12:55 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2012-04-04 11:50, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/03/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
[SNIP]
I'll try to explain what I mean again...
I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the
class of changes that are related to
On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
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.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard:
the two setups described above are both already supported by the current
automake implementation (but the last one is not encouraged, even though
it makes perfect sense in
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
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.
On 04/04/2012 12:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying
goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time
fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor
issue...
Why speculate? I haven't seen any
On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info
12 matches
Mail list logo
