Subject: Re: gcc3 package(s)
To: Frederick Bruckman <>
From: Marc Recht <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/14/2003 01:02:24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

> 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
Hmm.. It's not that easy. gcc still needs some patches and a pkg is just=20
more convient.

> 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
I don't see that breaking a big and rather complex piece of software into=20
pieces simplifies the maintenance burden. IMHO a maintainer has to rebuild=20
the complete suite anyway, to check that his/her patch didn't break any=20
other part.

> purpose is defeated by keeping gcc3 around as it is: currently, there
> are two packages that would need to be built and tested.
Yes, that should be changed. By reverting the change(s) and make it one big =

pkg again or by making lang/gcc a meta-pkg. (But that's the
decision of the maintainer, since he has all the work...)

mundus es fabula
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)