Re: libiberty includes

[DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>]

> In a related vein: is there a reason that libiberty isn't released
> as a standalone package, seeing as how it is depended upon by so
> many different packages?

No, aside from "nobody has bothered".  I'd rather see effort put into
a "libiberty manual" that details the specs a libiberty-using
application can count on.

Plus, making one more cvs repository means one more set of merges :-(

At the moment, you can't even just check out and build just libiberty
from gcc's cvs.  I use special cvs tricks to get libiberty without
gcc, but it's hard to configure and build it that way, and there are
no testsuites for libiberty, so there's not much to do with a
standalone libiberty either.

> It seems counter-intuitive to have a binutils libiberty, a gcc
> libiberty, a gdb libiberty, etc.

There are only really two: gcc, and "everything else" (binutils, gdb,
gas, ld, cygwin, and newlib all share one cvs repository and thus one
libiberty).  I keep them identical.