From owner-freebsd-current Wed Feb 6 21:42:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62EF37B420 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g175ggB111534; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:42:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <15457.55061.55399.596297@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> References: <20020206160611.B181@dragon.nuxi.com> <200202070053.g170rjQ19592@aldan.algebra.com> <20020206170904.C181@dragon.nuxi.com> <15457.55061.55399.596297@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:42:41 -0500 To: Joe Kelsey , current@FreeBSD.ORG From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: gcc3.x issues Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 5:23 PM -0800 2/6/02, Joe Kelsey wrote: >It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a >version of gcc that is officially supported and that also >includes *all* of the standard platforms that come as part of >the gcc release. This line of reasoning does not scale up well. It is plain that people will want to install 'ruby', because ruby is necessary for the VERY USEFUL port known as 'portupgrade'. People will also want to install autoconf and automake. I have about seventy ports installed, all of which I think are very useful and very nice to have. Most of them are ports that many other people will also want to install. All of them are ports I would use more often than gjc, and I am someone who *likes* working with computer languages. However, "many people" wanting a particular port does not justify moving it into the base system. You talk as if the ports collection is only for things that nobody wants. This is an odd view of ports. You talk as if ports are not "officially supported". It is true that some of them are orphans, but other ports are supported just as well and just as fervently as anything in the base system. I think David is 100% right in his position. That position is that unless there is some major reason that gjc *must* be in the base system, then it can survive quite well as a port. I have read through your messages, and I have seen no convincing reason why gjc *must* be in the base system. Personally, I see no reason at all. This is not meant as an insult against gjc. It's simply a matter of what does and does not belong in the base system. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message