Roger Håkansson <[email protected]> writes: > On 2010-03-31 19:16, Peter FELECAN wrote: >>>> gcc is not so OS bound (if you have specifics I'm eager to know them). >>> >>> Well, they have target-OS compiled into the binaries, i.e 'gcc -v' >>> gives 'Target: i386-pc-solaris2.8' (on x86) regardless of actual OS >> >> That only a epiphenomena and doesn't imply a misfeature. > > Not in it self, no, but when others start using that as basis for > optimizing/configuring their software things can go seriously > wrong. I've seen several packages where they use the output from gcc > to figure out which OS they are running and what features they can > use.
Can you give one or more examples? >>> Releasing separate packages should be easier than fixing the broken ones... >> >> The issue is only with fixing the includes and it can be done manually; >> BTW, it *must* be done manually when you upgrade your system's >> headers. Consequently, I don't see how releasing separate packages give a >> better solution. > > Yes, fixing the includes should always be done regardless of whether > its a multi-OS release or not. But I still argue that gcc is one of > the packages where we should ship separate packages for each release. What will solve that? Why? Arguments of the arguing, please. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
