Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Hi,
there has been a lengthy discussion on bugzilla ([1]), about the best
packaging method for the gnat Ada compiler. The outcome seems to be that
gnat will still have its own ebuild in the future and not be part of the
GCC ebuild. It also has a mention that gcj will eve
Wow, thanks Dirk for bringing this up, but no thatnks for rushing - I haven't
got my prototype ebuilds and eclass workign yet :). Well, I did somewhat, but
not to the point where it would really, um, work..
Anyway, since this was brought up, I think I would do that -dev posting, to
announce pro
Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 09:44 schrieb ext Ciaran McCreesh:
> GCC does not have a nice clean build system, nor does it have a nice
> clean modular setup that allows you to pick and choose language
> frontends (or arch backends) at anything other than compile time. It's
> just not designed to le
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:32:44 +0100 Dirk Heinrichs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 09:16 schrieb ext Ciaran McCreesh:
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC
| > | into split ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons?
|
Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 09:16 schrieb ext Ciaran McCreesh:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC into
> | split ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons?
>
> Sure, that'd be nice. It's also impossible, but don't let that stop you
> from tr
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:47:00 +0100 Dirk Heinrichs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC into
| split ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons?
Sure, that'd be nice. It's also impossible, but don't let that stop you
from trying.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
