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 ( look at RedHat /usr/src hierarchy, look at
[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 ( look at RedHat
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 have
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 it
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
-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 files
in
