| 1 |
Dirk Heinrichs wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> there has been a lengthy discussion on bugzilla ([1]), about the best |
| 5 |
> packaging method for the gnat Ada compiler. The outcome seems to be that |
| 6 |
> gnat will still have its own ebuild in the future and not be part of the |
| 7 |
> GCC ebuild. It also has a mention that gcj will eventually be split out |
| 8 |
> from the GCC ebuild in the future. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC into split |
| 11 |
> ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The only case where we actually split anything is for the few C-only kernel |
| 14 |
compiler packages, gcc-mips64, gcc-sparc64, gcc-powerpc64, etc.. These disable |
| 15 |
everything else but C, as this compiler is explicitly only for kernel building. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Anything else...good luck. Aim for manipulating USE flags properly, though, to |
| 18 |
disable features of gcc you don't want or need. This works better than |
| 19 |
splitting everything. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
--Kumba |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead |
| 26 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands |
| 29 |
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives