On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 12:54 AM James K. Lowden <jklow...@schemamania.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:03:12 -0700 > Andrew Pinski via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > Building a full distribution of this tree isn't done > > > via 'make dist'. Check out the etc/ subdirectory > ... > > You just tar up the source. > > You could use maintainer-scripts/gcc_release to make a snapshot but in > > the end it just does `tar xcfj file.tar.bz2 gcc` . > > If I may, the error message would be improved by making it shorter: > > > Building a full distribution of this tree isn't done > > via 'make dist'. > > since that at least would be accurate! But why not just make it work > again? Change the dist target in Makefile.in:
Note that etc/ is present in the src tree (from binutils/gdb), the complication here is that the toplevel Makefile is shared between gcc and binutils/gdb so we can't simply invoke something from maintainer-scripts which isn't present on the binutils/gdb side ... > dist: > tar xcfj file.tar.bz2 gcc > or > dist: > $(srcdir)/maintainer-scripts/gcc_release $(RELEASE_OPTS) > > where RELEASE_OPTS has some simple default. The user wishing to know > more can inspect the script to determine what options to use. > > I spent several hours looking for information on how to do this. I > wasn't counting on a decade of misdirection. It's not mentioned > anywhere that I could find in the source tree or the wiki. I missed > maintainer-scripts among the 75 files because it wasn't in upper case, > where I expect to find developer information. If the process of > generating nightly tarballs is documented, I missed that, too. There is https://gcc.gnu.org/releasing.html and assorted pages where such stuff is documented. There's probably something similar on the binutils/gdb side. I guess the best thing we can do is improve the wording of the 'make dist' diagnostic plus eventually have parts of it documented in sourcebuild.texi Richard. > I'm happy to open a PR or submit a patch. > > --jkl >
