Subject: Re: lang/gcc3/buildlink2.mk and the new lang/gcc3-* pkgs
To: Tom Spindler <email@example.com>
From: grant beattie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/07/2003 23:00:23
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:47:30AM -0700, Tom Spindler wrote:
> Should lang/gcc3/buildlink2.mk be modified so that it can use the
> lang/gcc3-* packages instead of requiring the monolithic (and gigantic)
> full gcc3 package to be installed? This would require that packages
> express what they'd actually need from gcc, though: gcc, g++, g77, etc.
the issue I see with this is that we would need to identify which
packages use only a C compiler, and which use more than that.
another potential issue is how to do this and deal with multiple
compiler packages, as mk/gcc.buildlink2.mk does right now.
if someone is willing to think this through and do the required work,
it sounds like a sane idea. on a related note, I really would like to
see a gcc3-shlib package so that users don't have to install lang/gcc3
(or gcc3-c++) to get the runtime libraries required...