Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

[Petteri Räty]

Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted <20060104084418.37ff6b02@××××××××.home>, excerpted
> below,  on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:44:18 +0000:
>
>
>>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:32:44 +0100 Dirk Heinrichs
>><ext-dirk.heinrichs@×××××.com> wrote:
>>| Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 09:16 schrieb ext Ciaran McCreesh:
>>| > <ext-dirk.heinrichs@×××××.com> wrote:
>>| > | So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC
>>| > | into split ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons?
>>| >
>>| > Sure, that'd be nice. It's also impossible, but don't let that stop
>>| > you from trying.
>>|
>>| Could you explain why it is impossible?
>>
>>GCC does not have a nice clean build system, nor does it have a nice
>>clean modular setup that allows you to pick and choose language
>>frontends (or arch backends) at anything other than compile time. It's
>>just not designed to let you provide gcc-frontend-c, gcc-frontend-c++,
>>gcc-backend-x86-linux etc packages.
>
>
> That begs the question... how is it then possible for gcj/java, gnat/ada
> and the like? Are some languages treated differently upstream?  (Curious
> users want to know! <g>)
>

It is not possible for gcj/java. The best thing you can do is to make on
ebuild for gcj that just disables as much as it can in the gcc build
process. This does not avoid duplication but helps somewhat. Work on
this has already been done by one of our users. If you are interested in
this take a look at:

http://research.operationaldynamics.com/linux/gentoo/dev-java/gcj-jdk/

I have talked with the upstream gcj maintainer in the past and they are
planning to separate gcj in such a way from the core that they would be
able to make separate releases. He just said that the binary interface
between the two is just not stable enough yet.

Regards,
Petteri