Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/gcc
To: James Chacon <email@example.com>
From: Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/28/2002 15:42:34
Jet-lagged to the eyeballs as I am, I too would prefer mk/gcc.mk,
FWIW - basically, the functionality shoudld live in a central place,
it's not related to buildlink, and the name should reflect its usage.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:42:30AM -0500, James Chacon wrote:
> Probably something different should be done. I'm open to opinions here
> before I go through rototilling the places that refer to Makefile.gcc or
> are checking egcs versions.
> >> 2. Makefile.gcc can now be included by anything which depends on gcc versions.
> >> If the version installed isn't 2.95.3 it'll add itself as a BUILD_DEPENDS.
> >> (XXX: any of the makefile's in pkgsrc should be checked and change to use
> >> this)
> >It would be nice that this file can be referred to as mk/gcc.mk, if
> >there's a consensus that kludges to decide the right version of a
> >package (or a some subsystem) across base systems and third party
> >packages should be assembled under mk/, and the way mk/texinfo.mk is
> >to go.