On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 3:41 AM, Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
I didn't know that fink exported the fields in the info files into environment variables. ;-)-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, August 24, 2003, at 10:48 AM, John Davidorff Pell wrote:I'm actually a little confused as to why each *package* needs the gcc:
3.1 | 3.3 flags. Its only important to which version of gcc3 we compile
with, not which code we compile.
Shouldn't fink just keep track of which gcc3 a given package was
compiled with instead of making a duplicate info file for each? i.e. In
theory foo.info with gcc: 3.1 and foo.info with gcc: 3.3 should be
identical except for that line, so why make duplicates?
If we force a given fink distro to use only one gcc3, then can't we
just make it require the correct gcc3 be used and leave it at that?
Then all the C++ code will always be from 3.3 (or 3.1).
Unless i'm very confused this would simplify it a bit, wouldn't it?
The problem is with the upgrade. What we did for the gcc 3.1 upgrade
was to only force users to recompile fink packages which have C++ code
in them, and allowed them to keep their already-compiled things from
the previous distribution if those things did not involve C++.
I agree that it would be simpler to just use a given gcc for a given
distribution, but then we would need a mechanism to force people to
replace all of their fink packages (and to replace them in the correct
order, if they are building from source) when they upgrade.
-- Dave
So then let's make a much more descriptive field. if a package has c++ code in it...
CPP: Yes
If a package has this and we upgrade, then build any dependancies it has that also have it. then build that package and we're happy. :-)
Well, first of all, CPP stands for C PreProcessor, not C++. Second, we try to make sure the default way of building remains the same with all users. It is so much easier to know that in 99.99% of cases, there is a standard set of tools being used. Also, we do not create the CPP or CFLAGS variables, they are standard, and are meant to hold custom command line options, so assigning Yes to the value that should be the CPP makes less then 0 sense.
AFAIK the GCC tags are only required for c++ packages, but it's a good way to mark the highest compiler they build on.So not "CPP", do "CPlusPlus: Yes" if you like, but GCC: 3.1 currently does *NOT* mean that a package is any better on 3.1 than it is on 3.3, perhaps we should make it mean that, and create another for c++?
- -chris zubrzycki
What I'm suggesting is that we have a field that says "This package has C++ in it" i thought that was the idea for the GCC field, but the versioning makes that kinda weird, and non-c++ packages can have the field, which defeats the whole purpose if this is the case. Then we can work with recompiling only packages that have C++ in it when we upgrade and the rest of the packages can just work.
JP
--
if (message.signature==FUNNY) steal(message.signature); else message=message->next;
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here:http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/358/0 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
