On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 16:01 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 20:47 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > > Actually, looking more closely, the libiberty.a is the only one > > > > installed > > > > that way (from the gcc sources). All others (for example libstdc++.a) > > > > seem > > > > to follow standard convention (32 bit in lib, 64 bit in lib/sparcv9). > > > > Hmmm... bug in gcc-4.0.2/libiberty/Makefile.in? > > > > > > Bingo. :-) http://gcc.gnu.org/PR16513 > > > > I wonder how many more examples like that we need before we impose > > testing after install and not in tree... > > > > Only consequence for the few who configure with --prefix=/usr from their > > tree will be to change to --prefix=/some/user/dir so install doesn't > > break the system if the tested compiler is not up to the task. > > We can do this without touching --prefix, in fact, via DESTDIR and > relocatable installs.
I assume DESTDIR will suffer a lot of recurrent breakage if we still test in tree when it goes in. > It's just a bit disruptive to the workflow, so I > wanted to wait until toplevel bootstrap was settled first. Yes, another impact of testing after install is that many small dev scripts will have to be changed to make check after make install and not before. Laurent
