David O'Brien writes:
 > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
 > > It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a version
 > > of gcc that is officially supported and that also includes *all* of the
 > > standard platforms that come as part of the gcc release.
 > You do realize that means Ada for 3.1 don't you?  Pascal in the the works.
 > Also that means bringing in Chill also for 2.95 and later.

So what?  When I install gcc on a non-native platform (such as HP-UX or
Solaris), I install the whole thing regardless of whether or not I
personally will use all of the bits right away.
 > > What is so wrong with being able to specify a compilation flag that says
 > > "install all of the extra bits that come with gcc".
 > 1.  They are not needed by the base system, nor are the part of a
 >     traditional BSD system.

So what?  Just because it wasn't part of 4.2 BSD, does that mean that we
should never support it?

 > 2.  What is so hard with installing the port.  No one has answered *THAT*
 >     question yet.

Ports are installed in /usr/local.  gcc is installed in /usr.  Either
provide a way to install *all* of gcc as part of the system, or provide
a *suppported* way to *replace* it with a port.  I do not want to have
two versions of gcc fighting for disk space and confusing users over
PATH issues.

 > 3.  Are you going to maintain them?  If we did do this work and allowed
 >     people to optinally install gjc and Ada, I bet only 5% would do so
 >     (other than the initial turning it on just to see what the compilers
 >     looked like).

What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
to provide at system build time?  I thought that gcc was supposed to be
a modular compiler system, and that all we are asking for is the ability
to add to the default front ends, along with the default support
libraries, in the default places.
 > > I agree that installing the entire gcc chain is overkill for many small
 > > sites, but if you have the horsepower, you can choose appropriate points
 > > in the release cycle where you want to install the entire compiler suite
 > > (say right after a major release) and set the appropriate flag *at that
 > > time* to get the bits you want.
 > > 
 > > Or, it could be a predefined package available for installation that
 > > puts all of the compilers in the same place as the standard gcc/g++,
 > > i.e., /usr instead of /usr/local.
 > Again, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM you are trying to solve?  Just laziness of not
 > being willing to type ``pkg_add -r gcc30'' or ``pkg_add -r gcc31''?

Because it installs in non-default places.  It creates duplicates of
gcc, all libraries and is a potential source of error and confusion over
what is the *real* supported compiler.

What is so wrong with allowing someone to choose at system build time
what parts of gcc to build into the base system.  I already agreed with
you that the default should be just gcc and g++.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to