| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh posted <20060104084418.37ff6b02@××××××××.home>, excerpted |
| 2 |
below, on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:44:18 +0000: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:32:44 +0100 Dirk Heinrichs |
| 5 |
> <ext-dirk.heinrichs@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> | Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 09:16 schrieb ext Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 7 |
> | > <ext-dirk.heinrichs@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> | > | So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC |
| 9 |
> | > | into split ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons? |
| 10 |
> | > |
| 11 |
> | > Sure, that'd be nice. It's also impossible, but don't let that stop |
| 12 |
> | > you from trying. |
| 13 |
> | |
| 14 |
> | Could you explain why it is impossible? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> GCC does not have a nice clean build system, nor does it have a nice |
| 17 |
> clean modular setup that allows you to pick and choose language |
| 18 |
> frontends (or arch backends) at anything other than compile time. It's |
| 19 |
> just not designed to let you provide gcc-frontend-c, gcc-frontend-c++, |
| 20 |
> gcc-backend-x86-linux etc packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That begs the question... how is it then possible for gcj/java, gnat/ada |
| 23 |
and the like? Are some languages treated differently upstream? (Curious |
| 24 |
users want to know! <g>) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 28 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 29 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 30 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives