Excerpts from Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński's message of Fri Jun 22 19:45:35 -0400 2012:
> I wouldn't like this to go unanswered. In my opinion, this is a > reasonable target state. I don't mean that there should be only one Agreed. I kept this thread in my inbox as I did intend to reply. It's definitely an important topic and we've discussed it somewhat in the past. I'm basically in the pragmatic camp here. With limited time and resources, we should spend less time fighting the compilers and more time improving packages and tools. If fixes for making things build with studio are easy, that's great. Patches should be submitted upstream to keep the project honest. In cases where fixes are non-trivial the question of whether fixing it is time well spent should be asked...in my own case, this answer is most often no. I'm delivering less benefit to the project when I spend time porting to studio. (I agree that it is interesting and enjoyable work, but it's a side benefit to the project and not the core goal.) For the purposes of our project, having disjointed c++ libraries is something that can cause us serious pain. To avoid this, standardizing on one compiler is definitely a good choice. It would let us avoid the /opt/csw/gxx split. If we do standardize this way though, we would likely want to rebuild anything that is c++ and provides a library and then all of the dependant packages. I haven't looked at how large a set of packages this is (it may not be too bad), but it would be a lot of work too. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
