1 |
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:13:06 +0100 |
2 |
Johannes Findeisen <mailman@×××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
> <snip> |
6 |
> > I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages |
7 |
> > need gcc-core and the additional sub-package. |
8 |
> > how do you think about an eclass for these builds? |
9 |
> </snip> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> an eclass for this thing would be great. afaik the tarballs are all |
12 |
> compiling the same way. i have looked at the other eclasses and there |
13 |
> is allready an gcc.eclass, so we need to think about a name and some |
14 |
> other things. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> in my opinion, the standard gcc ebuilds should be there for |
17 |
> bootstrapping. is it possible to use the intel c++ compiler icc for |
18 |
> bootstrapping? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> if this is possible then we could decide to use the gcc compiler |
21 |
> without java,f77 etc... during the bootstrap process. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
Well, to split them up is not really the Gentoo way. Part of why |
25 |
the vim split cause some grumbling, but until some support needed |
26 |
are added for portage to fix this, will have to stay. |
27 |
|
28 |
Then, using USE flags will be the more appropriate way. Problem |
29 |
though is that to add a flag that only gets used once .... |
30 |
|
31 |
I think for the time being, it should stay as is ... the more advanced |
32 |
user that really have this as an issue, could always edit the ebuild. |
33 |
Isn't this part of the simplicity and bash nature of ebuilds ... being |
34 |
able to edit things to suit ? |
35 |
|
36 |
We have talked about being able to group use flags, or some different |
37 |
strategy to fix this sort of thing, but until Nick and the gang can |
38 |
hammer something out, I'd rather wait before doing something that will |
39 |
need to be reversed again. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
Regards, |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
|
46 |
Martin Schlemmer |
47 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
48 |
Cape Town, South Africa |