Re: Get rid of underscore.c

[Christian Jönsson <christian at j-son dot org>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:00:55PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> | Hi Jason,
> | 
> | > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> | > 
> | > But since it's never been much of a problem that both binutils and
> | > gcc installed c++filt, I'd rather keep it in both.  So that, like DJ
> | > says, if there is user confusion, we can always say `use the
> | > latest'.
> | 
> | Jason - do you agree with this suggestion ?  I know that you feel that
> | the binutils version does not really need to be there, but quite a few
> | other people seem to like it.  Will it make your life unnecessarily
> | difficult if we keep the two versions of the program and share the
> | common code via libiberty ?
> 
> This is not meant to throw oil on the fire... but I feel like Jason,
> I'm not convinced that there ought to be two versions of c++filt.
> Each time, we duplicate things, we get back pains and confusions.  Is
> it really that we do like pains and confusions?
> 
> -- Gaby

Is it really that hard to support cross-project interests? 

I mean, assuming that c++filt et al. are files that really are in the
mutual interest of several software development projects. it should be
possible to, toolwise, support it. If cvs can't handle multiple
repositories cross-project, that's a assumed deficiency of cvs as I
see it.

Are we really arguing because this is not supported by cvs or are we
arguing which one of the projects c++filt belongs to more? The answer
could very well be *both*, not *either*...

Cheers,

/ChJ