Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/15/2003 17:09:48
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
: > Building the Java bits requires building the C and C++ bits in full, so a
: > "full gcc3" package *will* conflict with a "non-java gcc3" package.
: That's too bad. Is it possible to build the java bits with an
: installed compiler? Maybe something short of a full bootstrap?
: That way, the java package could just depend on the C/C++/F77.
: The would be the ideal solution.
"No, sorry, it needs the source build."
That's not entirely true, but the hackage involved in using a partly built
compiler is nowhere near trivial. Parts, such as the gcc backend and C++
platform configuration bits, still have to be rebuilt in any case.
: > As an alternative: Make a Makefile variable such as GCC3_EXTRA_LANGUAGES
: > that defaults to empty and can be changed in mk.conf to modify what
: > languages are built for the pkg. This would be added to the list "c c++
: > f77" that is put into LANGUAGES when building gcc3. And since gcc3 already
: > uses dynamic PLIST generation, you have no problem in creating a proper
: > PLIST for the requested languages.
: Yes, that would be easy, but then no gcc3-java binary package.
Then you could go the other way: let gcc3 (by default) build everything,
and have a GCC3_LANGUAGES_MINIMAL yes/no variable that (1) turns off all but
c/c++/f77, and (2) turns on NO_BIN_ON_* to prevent packaging in the bulk
case. I'd rather see the binary package as an "everything" gcc3, and not
even have a binary package in the bulk build for the stripped-down version.
: By the way, any idea why we're keeping gcc-2 and pgcc around? Doesn't
: gcc-3 do it all, and do it better?
*shrug* I dunno.
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com>