I'll try to rebuild my RPM against the latest CVS
and tell you more about the updated build system.
La prise de conscience de votre propre ignorance est un grand pas vers la
connaissance.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Se
+0
Same sentiments as Nacho. I don't like it, but I can
cave in to peer pressure with the best of 'em... :-)
'Course this means I'll have to change all my own damn
customized scripts again... :-(
Mel
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing some fixes in the nightly build, and I was
> Let me know what you think - I would be very happy to hear
> you strongly
> disagree with mixing the source and build result, but if no
I strongly %*+-=&/) but not disagree..
> commiter -1
> it I guess we should do it.
>
I dont like it but i cant -1 it, everybody seems very conviced that t
>Take a look at any RedHat ( or any similar, RPM-based linux system):
>/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/my-package
>/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/my-package
Just to complement, the RPM (not only Redhat) way :
Sources (+ patches) are in :
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/
ie: /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/jakarta-tomcat-src.t
d-gcc-2.95.2-cygwin-cross-linux
...
...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3.3 build tree
> I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the fil
> I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the files
> in etc or opt rather and not in the source directory. I guess I look at
> "build" as more equivalent to "make", because I ususally just copy the
> resulting directory structure from build to the production location
> ma
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I can say the same about building in the source directory... It just
> feels
> wrong and ugly ( kind of like having .class and .java in the same
> directory, instead of using javac -d ).
Same here, I hate that too.
Since most people involed with Tomcat seem to like
Steve Downey wrote:
> then, from in the bld-gcc-2.95.2, you run ../gcc-2.95.2/configure, and the
> build environment is created, while the source environment remains pristine.
> This is imperative if you're building for several environments out of the
> same source tree. In which case you might h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >
> > > And +1 for TC 3.x branch.
> >
> > Yes, please. =)
>
> Not so fast, please :-)
>
> There are scripts and people using the current style.
>
> -0 on changing 3.x:
> I think the sources and binaries shouldn't be in the same directory
> tree
