Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:33:33 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: alpha-971114: Makefiles revisited
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971123152225.19570S-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.971123192428.12501C-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

I had noted:

> > > * It will unconditionally install all the files in '../bin', '../lib'
> > > etc., relative to the 'src' directory where the build starts.

> Can we *please* have an option to build the libraries and utilities
> without overwriting the current ones?

Well, using my patches to the makefiles, you can: Just by unpacking
the djlsr distribution .zip to somewhere else than $(DJDIR) (and maybe 
changing the line setting MY_LIBGCC_A in makefile.def), you can build
them without overwriting anything at all.

My original diffs from July went one step further: they wrote nothing to
any place up-tree of the 'src' directory during the 'make' run. Everything
was built in src/{bin,lib,info,include}, and only by calling 'make
install' it would be transferred to the actual target location.

Given enough interest (i.e.: a good chance that it'll make it into the
distributed version), I might re-implement that trick for the current
setup. DJ?

> One situation where this might come in handy is when you want to build
> a library with non-default options, like -pg.

Good point. Building a 586-optimized lib for experimental purposes might
be another interesting idea along these lines. Generally, experimental
builds should never overwrite the production versions.

Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.