Subject: Re: mk/compiler.mk
To: John R. Shannon <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/04/2003 11:51:05
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, John R. Shannon wrote:
> I'd love to see gcc3 become a meta-package. It would simplify things
> considerably. As I understand it, the argument against doing this is that the
> monolithic package compiles faster than the separate packages.
Now that we've had gcc-3.3.2 in base for a while, more and more users
will only need one component, so for them, it would surely be faster
to compile the one thing, than all of them.
> 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
> > yet.
> > 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).