Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:45:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, Heino Tiedemann <rotkaps_spam_trap@gmx.de>, rotkap@gmx.de, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: firefox 13.0,1 needs lang/gcc46 -- to RUN?! Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1206120039420.3158@gerinyyl.fvgr> In-Reply-To: <20120610175859.GN60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <d1n4a9-r5h.ln1@news.hansenet.de> <4FD4140F.4010209@FreeBSD.org> <20120610175859.GN60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > In an ideal world, we would have separate packages for the runtime libs > and the build tools so that packages could be more portable, but I would > imagine that would be a lot of work. I looked into that last year and found that the FreeBSD ports infrastructure was not exactly helpful. Ideally I would want something like gcc46-runtime and gcc46-java and gcc46 itself, where -runtime is a hard dependency for gcc46 and -java optional. Short of building lang/gcc46 a couple of times via slave ports and packaging different aspects by virtue of different slave ports, or having gcc46 also include the contents of gcc46-runtime, the introduction of a gcc46-DONT-USE-JUST-USED-FOR-SUBPACKAGES dummy port was the only idea I came up with. None of the three approaches really convinced me. On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Yes that would be a lot of but it is the way we are doing. the upcoming > stagedir will open the door to easy package splitting and then allow > easily to split gcc into something like gcc-libs and gcc package or > something like that. Lovely. Looking forward to that! (Chris also indicated he had an idea, let's see. Whatever works. ;-) Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LNX.2.00.1206120039420.3158>