[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?
From:       Martin Schlemmer <azarah () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2003-01-05 15:42:26
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:13:06 +0100
Johannes Findeisen <mailman@hanez.org> wrote:


> <snip>
> > I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages
> > need gcc-core and the additional sub-package.
> > how do you think about an eclass for these builds?
> </snip>
> 
> an eclass for this thing would be great. afaik the tarballs are all
> compiling the same way. i have looked at the other eclasses and there
> is allready an gcc.eclass, so we need to think about a name and some
> other things.
> 
> in my opinion, the standard gcc ebuilds should be there for
> bootstrapping. is it possible to use the intel c++ compiler icc for
> bootstrapping?
> 
> if this is possible then we could decide to use the gcc compiler
> without java,f77 etc... during the bootstrap process.
> 

Well, to split them up is not really the Gentoo way.  Part of why
the vim split cause some grumbling, but until some support needed
are added for portage to fix this, will have to stay.

Then, using USE flags will be the more appropriate way.  Problem
though is that to add a flag that only gets used once ....

I think for the time being, it should stay as is ... the more advanced
user that really have this as an issue, could always edit the ebuild.
Isn't this part of the simplicity and bash nature of ebuilds ... being
able to edit things to suit ?

We have talked about being able to group use flags, or some different
strategy to fix this sort of thing, but until Nick and the gang can
hammer something out, I'd rather wait before doing something that will
need to be reversed again.


Regards,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]