> > > > ------- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-12-16 18:36 ------- > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Too funny, the Andrew-centric view of the world :-) :-) > > Other people do the same too. I was just the first to complain. > > > > There still needs to be a way to build without a bootstrap and without > > reconfiguring. If there is not then we will get bug reports about that. > > And > > this is still a documention failure. > > I agree about the documentation issue, maybe. Still, I don't think there is > anything wrong with this change, I agree totally with Joseph, FWIW my opinion > about such matters. I mean, normal users *must* boostrap anyway, GCC hackers > have just to pass a very simple config option (and running configure is very > fast, in general). Personally, I adapted to the new behavior in 2 minutes.
My main problem with how this was handled was there was not big warning about what was going to change and how to change your workflow. Only it was going to change. If Paolo B. had posted an email which said something like the following: If you did a "make all" before to just build (and not bootstrap) GCC, configure with --disable-bootstrap. But he did not which is why there is a bug report. -- Pinski
