On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, grant beattie wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:14:39PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
>
> > > include mk/gcc.buildlink2.mk so it can find libgcc_eh.
> >
> > 	Should every program thet gets built with gcc3 include
> > 	mk/gcc.buildlink2.mk (as in should there be a test for that
> > 	in bsd.pkg.mk?)
>
> only those which need "special care" - most packages don't need
> anything special to build with gcc3. the above is indeed a side-effect
> of buildlink2.
>
> gcc3 is a large beast, and including gcc.buildlink2.mk adds a
> considerable amount of time to the buildlink target for no reason in
> most packages, which is why I chose to not do that automatically.
>
> and for those who are about to say "we'll need to change all this
> when gcc3 is in base NetBSD"... no, only small changes will be
> required, and this stuff will still be required for non-NetBSD
> systems. :-)

	It seems strange to include mk/gcc.buildlink2.mk in a package
	that doesn't actually require gcc, just special handling in
	the case of gcc3. Maybe it should be

	.if defined(USE_GCC3)
	. include "../../mk/gcc.buildlink2.mk"
	.endif
	?

-- 
		David/absolute          -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --