On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 02:57 PM, Max Horn wrote:
You are probably right, anyway. Perhaps a bigger warning when installing the package was in order. :) A splitoff method sounds like a good idea.
It also apparently caused problems for some packages, maybe as you say only for gcc2 using packages, but that makes not much difference to me. IMO it is definitly not a good idea to just unconditionally use ccache all the time for everything. At the very least, put the symlinks in a splitoff, which then can be installed optionally by the informed user who does it as his/her own risk. As the package is now, it doesn't allow one to use ccache only selectively (the recommended procedure), forcing one to use an all-or-nothing usage. Bad.
In the current form, I won't accept the package for our current tree. I fully understand that ccache is important for development of big packages (xfree86, KDE, etc.), so I definitly want to see it back in the tree, but only after it has been fixed. You could go for the splitoff approach (with a big WARNING in the DescPackage field, please).
-Ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
