Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:10:04 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>, "Dag-Erling C. Smorgrav" <des@freebsd.org>, Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] ar(1) front-end committed. (notes for cross compile) Message-ID: <20080224181004.GC21162@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20080222170007.GA2622@plan0.kaiwan.csbnet.se> References: <20080221143351.GP57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <fpk4fa$gj0$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080221152549.GB21518@team.vega.ru> <20080221173150.GA93693@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080222070728.GA56282@team.vega.ru> <20080222091642.GB57428@team.vega.ru> <20080222093234.GB17107@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080222102409.GD57428@team.vega.ru> <20080222105413.GD94607@team.vega.ru> <20080222170007.GA2622@plan0.kaiwan.csbnet.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:07PM +0100, Kai Wang wrote: > Would it be better if we call them gar and granlib? Solaris did > that. Also if I remember correctly, some ports probes gar. We also > call GNU make as gmake... Why do we want I don't like "gar" as that is pronounceable to the point I could easily see that being the real name of an existing program. Also, why do we want ports using gnu-ar specifically vs. what ever is our native 'ar'? If our native 'ar' isn't up to the task, we shouldn't be doing this endeavor at all. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080224181004.GC21162>