Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:55:59 +0100 From: Kai Wang <kaiwang27@gmail.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>, "Dag-Erling C. Smorgrav" <des@freebsd.org>, Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] ar(1) front-end committed. (notes for cross compile) Message-ID: <20080224185559.GA15015@plan0.kaiwan.csbnet.se> In-Reply-To: <20080224181004.GC21162@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <fpk4fa$gj0$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080221152549.GB21518@team.vega.ru> <20080221173150.GA93693@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080222070728.GA56282@team.vega.ru> <20080222091642.GB57428@team.vega.ru> <20080222093234.GB17107@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080222102409.GD57428@team.vega.ru> <20080222105413.GD94607@team.vega.ru> <20080222170007.GA2622@plan0.kaiwan.csbnet.se> <20080224181004.GC21162@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:10:04AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:07PM +0100, Kai Wang wrote: > > Would it be better if we call them gar and granlib? Solaris did > > that. Also if I remember correctly, some ports probes gar. We also > > call GNU make as gmake... > > Why do we want > > I don't like "gar" as that is pronounceable to the point I could easily > see that being the real name of an existing program. Yes, you've got a good point. Actually I'm fine with either way... > Also, why do we want ports using gnu-ar specifically vs. what ever is our > native 'ar'? If our native 'ar' isn't up to the task, we shouldn't be > doing this endeavor at all.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080224185559.GA15015>