Message-Id:	<200006020635.JAA24428@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date:	Fri, 02 Jun 2000 09:34:14 +0200
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3936C8DD.14582.675545@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject:	Re: Binutils 2.10 and 8.3 filename clashes
References:	<3936C8DD DOT 14582 DOT 675545 AT localhost>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:34:37 -0400
> 
> Binutils 2.10 isn't far away, and I wanted some advice on what to do about 
> some filename conflicts reported by doschk. They don't affect building 
> Binutils for DJGPP under DOS, so I'm not sure if I should risk renaming them 
> (and then miss that one reference the breaks someone's cross-build) or just 
> leave them be and warn appopriately.

The best way is to rename them, perhaps together with reorganizing the
directory structure, but it's up to you and the core Binutils
maintainers whether you should do it now or aim for the next release.

GDB has a similar problem, except that the list of clashing file names
is much longer.  (Some of them aapear in Binutils as well, of course.)
There was a decision to change the subdirectory structure so that
these monster names would not be required.  For example, instead of
bfd/coff-tic30.c you could have bfd/coff/tic30.c, or something like
that.

But that is too much of a change, so the GDB maintainers decided not
to do this for the current release.  I hope it will be done in the
future.  For now, I included in the distribution a file that, when
submitted to DJTAR, will rename the files while unpacking.  This
complicates the unpacking procedure, but that's the best I could do
for now.

- Raw text -