Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:33PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...] >> > Also, maybe we could drop one of the three gcc versions. >> The default package does C and C++. We could imagine another one that >> would in addition to Objective-C and FORTRAN, yes. That would save >> build time, at the expense of being somewhat confusing to the user IMO. > > Sorry, here I meant the version numbers 4.7.3, 4.8.2 and 4.9.0. Maybe we could > drop 4.7.0? Eventually yes, but for now I think it may still be useful to have 4.7 around (for instance, as a developer it’s sometimes useful to test with older compilers.) >> One of the GCC 4.8.2 is ‘gcc-final’ in base.scm. > > So this is the one that is used for compiling all our packages? Yes. > Could we then not drop the gcc-4.8.2 from gcc.scm and let the user > install gcc-final? Or otherwise, give it a different NAME? It’s been discussed several times, but there’s no satisfactory solution so far. Changing the name seems like a bad idea, because it’s really gcc. Making either gcc-final or gcc-4.8 private isn’t an option because they’re referred from elsewhere. Maybe package objects should have an extra property that says whether they should be hidden? >> > Is there a way of printing not the line 95 in which the base gcc package is >> > defined from which all others inherit, but the line where the actual >> > package >> > is defined? >> Yes, good idea. >> I’ve just committed this patch: > > Hm, I meant in all generality for all packages that are inherited. Would > this be easily possible? Hmm, define-record-type* could be augmented with an inheritable? flag, and the ‘location’ field would be marked as non-inheritable, something like that. Ludo’.
