On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Note that building in the source directory has been known to not > work reliably for the GCC tree. In fact, there even have been > discussions to officially declare this unsupported ...
I have to speak up about this. Hopefully the maintainers will hear me. I encountered this when upgrading GLIBC recently and it is a real pain in the posterior, AND UNNECESSARY. The trouble to support GLIBC's new "forced relocation" build was considerable. Manually, it's minor, but many of us automate. There seems to be an asumption that we who download and build do not clean-up after ourselves, and/or some lack of diligence in the logic of 'make distclean' or even in 'make clean'. As for me, I re-crack the archive every time I do a build. PLEASE DO NOT HAM-STRING THE IN-SOURCE BUILD. If a little more thought had gone into the changes in GLIBC we would have a "bld" or some such sub-dir as the silent default. As it is, an otherwise WONDERFUL feature (relocating build) is in-your-face giving otherwise positive recipieints a bad experience. In another phase of Life and Linux, I would use and endorse relocating build. Thing of it: the IT team provides packages, any engineer can us what IT has built, or can build their own. In this context, relocated build is FABULOUS. Source in NFS and read-only (so it stays pristine), while the customizer builds on/in local filesystems. But not all of us are there today. PLEASE DO NOT BREAK THE IN-SOURCE BUILD OF GCC. -- R; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
