tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: A better method to require compiler features

To: nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: A better method to require compiler features
From: Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:14:44 -0400

nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> IMO the proposal only establishes that an existing compiler is "not
> good enough". We can work out what to do afterwards - whether it
> should result in a package outright failing to build or GCC 10
> always being pulled should IMO be a user choice.

That's fine with me.  I am all for keeping separate things separate.

References:
- A better method to require compiler features
  - From: nia
- Re: A better method to require compiler features
  - From: Greg Troxel
- Re: A better method to require compiler features
  - From: nia

Prev by Date: Re: A better method to require compiler features
Next by Date: Re: A better method to require compiler features
Previous by Thread: Re: A better method to require compiler features
Next by Thread: Re: A better method to require compiler features
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index