From owner-freebsd-current Wed Aug 7 11:21:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA26739 for current-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sag.space.lockheed.com (sag.space.lockheed.com [192.68.162.134]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA26734 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by sag.space.lockheed.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/21Nov95-0423PM) id AA32101; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:21:44 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brian N. Handy" To: Nate Williams Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whither gcc 2.7? In-Reply-To: <199608071727.LAA01936@rocky.mt.sri.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [trimmed up the cc: list a bit] On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Nate Williams wrote: >[...] > >In any case, if we bring in gcc, bringing in the *entire* distribution >would be a big mistake IMHO. The usefulness of other parts is minimal >at best, and the cost is spectacularly large in terms of disk space. >Heck, the entire gcc 2.7.2 distribution is bigger than bin, include, >libexec, sbin, and usr.bin combined. :( I concur with Nate here. I surmise that only a handful of people want to fiddle with the other platform stuff. If it was *me* doing that I suspect I would be willing to go download my own bloat. (Though I'm not using this other stuff, so keep my reply in context.) I guess another thing I wonder about...has anyone thought about the future plans of tracking gcc? We've been running 2.6.3 for a loong time, are we going to move to 2.7.# and stay with it or is FreeBSD going to start tracking gcc more closely? Brian