Hello, DJ.
You wrote 18 мая 2014 г., 23:55:28:
DD> so yeah, it's probably what people want. The only exception would be,
DD> for example, if you were packaging for a distro and you want to
DD> support upgrading. In those cases, it's better for the packaging if
DD> the package version numbers match the upstream version numbers, which
DD> means separate packages.
So, there is contradiction between requirements :)
DD> As for the two-stepping of gcc, note that modern gcc releases have
DD> separate host and target parts of the build. You do "make all-host;
DD> make install-host" at first, which gives you the compiler but not the
DD> runtime, then you build the libraries, then go back to gcc and do
DD> "make all; make install" to do the rest. This is needed regardless of
DD> which runtime you use.
And it contradicts to building separate packages too, because you could
not build and install half of a package ("make all-host install-host"), build
other package
(runtime) and build & install second part of a package ("make all
install"), it is completely insane. Or you should break gcc package into
two but, again, it is impossible in most packaging systems to do "make all
install" from SAME directory you did "make all-host install-host" for other
package!
So, it will be one package.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <l...@serebryakov.spb.ru>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
