Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 06/17/2003 17:00:08
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jeremy C. Reed 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.
: I haven't tried separating this myself (also do to time). But I see that
: Debian provides a separate gcj package that depends on other packages that
: are from gcc3 too (like libgcc1 and gcc-3).
Debian isn't as constrained as pkgsrc is when it comes to building binary
packages. It's possible to create more than one .deb (or .rpm, too) from a
single build tree. That's why it is so easy for those packaging systems to
have a "foo-lib" and "foo-lib-devel" split from one build.
pkgsrc does not -- yet -- have that ability. I've noted this more than
: Even if building the Java parts requires building the C and C++ parts too,
: does that mean that they have to be installed too? Can't it just depend
: on the smaller gcc3 (minus Java parts) package?
Yes, but you still have to do install hackage. And are you going to do this
for just Java, or also Ada? Note that (by default) gcc3 does need to build
f77, because bits of pkgsrc do indeed depend on such a compiler.
: In another posting, fredb says "My idea to strip out Java, however has
: been shot down". Is this idea really dead?
I don't think so. I believe that the idea to leave gcc3 as the full
package, and allow *removing* languages by providing split PLIST fragments,
was still on the table (though fredb notes that he doesn't have the CPU time
to test such a split).
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>