On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 07:06:23PM +0200, Marc Recht wrote:

> We've now a single package for every part of gcc3. Is there any reason why 
> lang/gcc3 doesn't install gcj (only) ? IMHO it's against the POLA to 
> install gcc3 _and_ gcc3-java to have a full gcc installation... Besides, it 
> doesn't really work since gcc3-java depends on gcc3-c which overwrites 
> parts of my gcc3 installation.
> IMHO gcc3 should be a meta-pkg including gcc3-* at least the full install.

I would prefer that the full gcc3 package stay, with perhaps all
languages re-enabled as is the default. we can create an additional
metapkg created to pull in the gcc3-* packages.

I personally have no interest in installing the gcc3-* packages, so I
don't know about the problem of having files overwritten - if this is
the case, they should be fixed.

I'm yet to figure out what to do about the fun that will be
buildlink2.mk files for gcc3-* .. hopefully someone else has thought
about this :-)

g.