On 30 September 2015 at 13:32, Antti Kantee <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh you still planned to keep rumpbake?
Well that was what I understood the proposal to be. Getting rid of it would be better. > I think Krishna's comparison to pkg-config is appropriate, and also exposes > the problem. > > pkg-config produces output that cc(1) doesn't know about, nor is the output > required for every execution of cc(1). > > Your proposed rumplinkconfig produces output that rumpbake requires for > every single successful link. > > As always, we'll follow the "separate normal case and worst case" principle. Not sure I understand. pkg-config is designed to produce output for cc(1)? Justin
