| 1 |
Well, not directly related to this issue, but related to gcc. So I'll reply to |
| 2 |
this thread in the hope of catching attention of all parties touching gcc |
| 3 |
ebuilds. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Please, do not add "ada" to gcc_lang definition in ebuilds, as per #25178! |
| 6 |
This is getting rediculous - the moment I clean-up ebuilds I see "ada" popping |
| 7 |
in in a newer version :). |
| 8 |
Having "ada" supplied will not add ada support to gcc. That involves quite a |
| 9 |
bit more: an ada-enabled bootstrap compiler (this is why this does not make |
| 10 |
any difference to majority of users) of a very specific version and certain |
| 11 |
additional procedure (this is why gcc build fails on users who have gnat |
| 12 |
installed). Even if time i taken to "fix" gcc ebuilds to support the supplied |
| 13 |
ada, this will yield only alpha-quality implementation, - quite undesirable |
| 14 |
for this language. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Please note, we now have ada supported separately from the main gcc tree. |
| 17 |
Please check out dev-lang/gnat for stable 3.14/3.15 version (gcc-2.8.2 based) |
| 18 |
and late cvs-snapshot of gnat-5.0 (gcc-3.2 based, package-masked atm). These |
| 19 |
use the code directly from the ACT (gnat developers) and this stuff does not |
| 20 |
interfere with gcc installations in a slightest - so you can have completely |
| 21 |
stable versions of both ;). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
George |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On Sunday 07 September 2003 13:33, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 26 |
> Hi |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Yes the intention was to have it '~x86'. Spider did not check |
| 29 |
> with me *before* he changed it (:D), but that is ok - I will |
| 30 |
> change that in a week or so if nothing major happens. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Thanks, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives