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
> 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