Subject: Re: Standard hacks in
To: Amitai Schlair <>
From: Johnny C. Lam <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 09/02/2005 05:56:24
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:56:03PM -0400, Amitai Schlair wrote:
> On the one hand, existing practice suggests splitting these instances 
> into files. On the other hand, that's a lot of duplication for 
> a hack that, in practice, looks pretty common. Would it make sense to 
> provide a definition for "sparc64-gcc2-ice" in, and 
> provide a way for a package to indicate that it needs this particular 
> hack?

Yes, please.  I had eventually wanted to do this when I committed the
"hacks" stuff, but I wanted to wait and see if there are any commonplace
hacks that are worthwhile to pull into a central location.  From your
description, it appears sparc64-gcc2-ice is one such hack.  Actually
there are probably a whole slew of "common" sparc64 hacks that probably
involve requiring gcc3.  In any case, if there is a nice way to
centralize the common hack definitions, I'm in favor of it.


	-- Johnny Lam <>