Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:46:34 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/gperf Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/groff/src/devices/grodvi Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/groff/src/devices/grohtml Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/groff/src/devices/grolbp Makefile sr Message-ID: <20020411014634.GA3463@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20020410180443.D84993@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20020408144719.B92702@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020408232040.459C33811@overcee.wemm.org> <20020408191029.B93005@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020410044821.GA10113@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20020410180443.D84993@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 06:04:43PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > > > I think only PROG_CXX is better. This automaticly means that PROG > > is for C. Always... > > There is a patch that implements PROG= such that we can remove the > explicit linkage of libstdc++. Unless someone writes and commits the > PROG_CXX, we have no better option than to commit ru's patch. I'm aware of that. I wouldn't mind seeing ru's patch being committed if it was understood that the PROG_CXX solution would cause it to be reverted. I hope that ru's patch and a subsequent PROG_CXX change would not result in having both at the same time, because that would be broken. In short: if we like something quick, then ru's patch is the best we have right now... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020411014634.GA3463>