Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > Pedro Alves 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. >>

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

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

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini 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 files -- and it t

Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future

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

Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future

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 >>

Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future

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 ve

Re: bug#11146: texinfo: could automake start using the '--tidy' option in its dvi and pdf rules?

On 04/01/2012 10:49 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > References: > > > > On 04/01/2012 03:11 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 04/01/2012 02:30 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >