Re: Support GCC runtime

["Jonathan Perkin" <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost>]

* On 2012-07-25 at 10:27 BST, Steven Drake wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> 
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > 
> >   We split gcc47 into separate -compiler and -runtime packages, and
> >   retain a meta package for gcc47 which includes both.  Packages can
> >   now depend upon just the -runtime package for _GCC_USE_SHLIB.
> 
> I thought of doing the same thing myself, but didn't think about having
> a meta package.
> 
> > Caveats
> > =======
> > 
> >   This means two builds of gcc, as there doesn't seem to be an easy
> >   way to just build the parts necessary. 
> 
> The way I was/am thinking of doing things wouldn't have this problem.
> (There would be a down side, just not as bad as above :)
> 
> >   The USE_LIBTOOL/USE_GCC_RUNTIME stuff isn't particularly clean, but
> >   I don't know of a better way - any ideas?
> 
> I've got an idea of how to deal with this, and when I get some time I'll
> work on it.
> 
> > Code
> > ====
> I haven't had a look at it yet and I'll get email you again after I've
> had a look at it.

Hi Steven,

Do you have any updates on this?  I'd really like to get this stuff in
for 2012Q3 as we depend upon it, even if it's sub-optimal.

One additional issue I've ran into is a circular dependency between
gcc47-runtime and perl, as perl is required for the g++ build.  My
initial thought to fix this would be to split the runtime package
further into runtime-c, runtime-c++ etc.  This would increase overall
build times, but would reduce dependency sizes and build times for
packages which only require libgcc.

I've not done this yet, but the joyent_gccruntime branch does have a
few package updates for manual USE_GCC_RUNTIME additions (I have a
list of packages which require it, too).

Regards,

-- 
Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -  www.joyent.com