[email protected] wrote:
...
Should I retro-fit gcc-dev to also be so classified?
Yes - both "gcc-dev" and "gcc-dev-4" should be classifed as such.
Okay.
The corresponding "gcc-dev" cluster depends on quite a few
other components useful from a developer point of view. Seems
these should be included here as well.
These would be:
depend SUNWaconf
depend SUNWbison
depend SUNWcvs
depend SUNWflexlex
depend SUNWgcc <== developer/gnu/gcc-dev-4
No, that would be SUNWgcc432 (namely just the compiler).
depend SUNWgdb
depend SUNWgmake
depend SUNWgnu-automake-110
depend SUNWgnu-automake-19
depend SUNWlibtool
depend SUNWmercurial
depend SUNWsprot
depend SUNWsvn
So developer/gnu/gcc-dev-4 would equate to just SUNWgcc
above. Should it be called developer/gnu/gcc-4 instead and
developer/gnu/gcc-dev-4 would bundle it up with all the others?
That certainly wasn't what was requested on the original
project checklist). George, what would you like to see happen here?
I think we should make this match what we did for "gcc" and "gcc-dev"
originally.
Okay.
That said, as these are currently unbundled components does it make
sense to introduce the names SUNWgcc432 and SUNWgcc432runtime at this
time? Those two should have hierarchal names.
Oh fun! So how about:
developer/gnu/gcc-432
developer/gnu/gcc-runtime-432
?
If we do bundle it up, can it then simply be classified as
"Development/Integrated Development Environments"
Not sure what you mean by "bundle" up? ...
If we are bundling up (grouping together) the various packages
as defined above, then I think my question is moot, and I'll simply
classified it as "Development/Suites" (along with gcc-dev in
101a/common/GccDev).
When we've got some sort of agreement on the other two new package
names (see above), I'll generate a new webrev.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
