Subject: Re: gcc3 package(s)
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: leam <email@example.com>
Date: 07/13/2003 07:24:58
Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> 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.
Why did the "make install" in gcc3 only install gmake and not *any*
gcc-language? I'm using pkgsrc from Friday on sparc64.