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 PATH issues. > 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++. /Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
