Subject: Re: mk/compiler.mk
To: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
From: John R. Shannon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/04/2003 10:33:21
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'd love to see gcc3 become a meta-package. It would simplify things=20
considerably. As I understand it, the argument against doing this is that t=
monolithic package compiles faster than the separate packages.
If the meta-package is acceptable, I have one almost ready to commit. I've=
been using this as a local solution to the problem.
On Thursday 04 December 2003 10:26 am, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > > How do we force pkgsrc gcc 3x to be used (for a language front-end not
> > > included in the base system)?
> > Why would you make folks build and install all of gcc3x just for a
> > language front-end? Isn't that what "gcc3-ada", "gcc3-objc" and so on
> > are for?
> That is part of the problem. compiler.mk doesn't know about gcc3-whatever
> And gcc3 (3.3) is older than the gcc3-counterparts (3.3.2). These should
> be kept in sync (using another Makefile.common?) or gcc3 should become a
> meta-package (I can't remember the arguments against that).
> Jeremy C. Reed
John R. Shannon
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----