Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/16/2003 08:10:44
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> 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?
In my case, I use the gcc 2.x (as installed from pkgsrc) for building the
Linux kernel (which is also in my pkgsrc) under Linux.
I also dislike waiting for the Java to build. And I don't like wasting the
space to install.
If I figured it out right, the Java installed takes 145960 kB (of total
170384 kB gcc-3.3 install under Linux).
Maybe lang/gcc3 could be a meta package.
By the way, I have been using gcc3 from pkgsrc since December (I installed
it as gcc3 back then too). I have built hundreds of packages using gcc3.
Jeremy C. Reed