Subject: Re: gcc3 package(s)
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/13/2003 01:41:10
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Todd Vierling wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, grant beattie wrote:
> : I would prefer that the full gcc3 package stay, with perhaps all
> : languages re-enabled as is the default. we can create an additional
> : metapkg created to pull in the gcc3-* packages.
> If there's a meta-package, there's no point in having the non-split package
> at all -- it would actually be a bit *more* confusing to have both.  (Hence
> why I originally said, before this splitting work started, that lang/gcc3
> should then automatically become a metapackage of all the split ones.)

Of course it should be a meta-pkg. If anyone wants an untrammeled,
as-distributed-by-gnu gcc-3.3/3.3.1, he can download a snapshot, or
check it out via anoncvs, and build it. One motivation for the split
was to simplify the maintenance burden, so that a committer could
build and test a patch to gcc-c without having to build libjava. This
purpose is defeated by keeping gcc3 around as it is: currently, there
are two packages that would need to be built and tested.