Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 12:54:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, peter@spinner.dialix.com (Peter Wemm), current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whither gcc 2.7? Message-ID: <199608071854.MAA02426@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199608071850.LAA28695@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <199608071727.LAA01936@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199608071850.LAA28695@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Justin T. Gibbs writes: > >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. :( > > Why not import the whole thing but only distribute the i386 code by > default? We can easily setup additional CVSup targets for the non > i386 portions of the compiler for people interested in cross compiling > or working on a new port. This is a workable solution, as long as all the distribution methods allow for it. (I'm still waiting to get a PC98 target distribution, which has the same complexity as what you just suggested.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608071854.MAA02426>