On 8/23/05, David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote: > > An XCode Legacy Tools package is now available on ADC which provides, among > other things, gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 3.1 for Tiger (and Panther). If a Tiger > user installs this, fink will want to install it's gcc3.1 package since it's > version number is higher than the virtual gcc3.1 package. This is likely not > the desired behavior. :) > > Fink's gcc3.1 package installs into the fink prefix (usually /sw), so it's > not as if there's a critical problem with Fink's GCC overwriting Apple's GCC > 3.1. It just means a bit of extra compile time and installation space, when > they end up installed in parallel. > > I wouldn't object to synchronizing the version numbers of the GCC 3.1 > virtual package and the real package. Currently the virtual one is at > version '3.1' and the real one uses the build number '1175', it should be > possible to have them both use '1:3.1-1175' for example. Perhaps there is a > pressing reason why they need to be different? > > > One problem, however, is keeping these versions in synch. If there's a minor > change to the real package, and the revision needs to be bumped, should the > revision of the virtual package be bumped too? And how will the virtual > package engine know when its revision needs a bump? > > Another potential problem arises if there's a particular package somewhere > that needs specifically the Apple or Fink version of GCC 3.1 (assuming there > turns out to be any bug or other difference in one of them). > > > Any ideas how to get around these issues? If it's not reasonably easy to do > so, it might be best to just live with the imperfect but working solution we > have now, and simply deal with the extra time and space needed to install > Fink's gcc3.1 in parallel. > > Dave > Thanks to Daniel for the heads-up about this issue. > > The fink gcc3.1 is a crude hack (made by me) which lets some gcc 3.1 > packages compile but not all. I plan to test the new Apple package, but I > assume it will do a better job. Once the testing has been done, we can > decide how best to proceed. > > -- Dave >
As a lowest-order test, I checked the gcc2 and gcc3 executables from the Legacy package and compared them to those from XCode 1.5--they're identical (size, anyway). ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
