[arch-dev-public] [core] progress
Jan de Groot
jan at jgc.homeip.net
Fri Sep 14 19:36:07 EDT 2007
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 18:09 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On 9/14/07, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > I would prefer to have the splitup as layed
> > out above: C/C++ in one compiler package, C/C++ runtime libs in one
> > package and one package for each language we support (objc moves to a
> > standalone pkg).
> I like this too. We don't really want to go too crazy with splitting
> things whenever possible. I mean, it's nice an all, but there's a fine
> line where things become a pain to maintain simply because we wanted
> to save one or two deps and a few hundred K of disk.
> But I trust you know what you're doing here. I'll throw my weight
> behind the list you had above:
> - gcc-libs
> - gcc
> - gcc-fortran
> - gcc-java
> - gcc-objc
Andy stated to have one big gcc frontend package that includes all the
languages, except for java because that pulls in GTK. IMHO the above
mentioned splitup is best, where each other supported language other
than C and C++ will go outside core. IMHO C and C++ are the languages we
should have in a core system. If we start supporting all these compilers
in core, where do we stop? There's also ada that we can package, there's
also mono to compile .Net, and there's also mono-basic to compile visual
> > > > - syslogng needs to be reviewed
> > >
> > > eliott brought up a worthwhile point. While it might be ugly, what's
> > > wrong with throwing glib into the 'devel' category?
> > glib2 is not devel, it's a lib!
> Ack yeah. I meant, really "why not move glib2 to core?" - the exact
> category is bikeshed-y, I just didn't want to go all overboard with
> how we split up core.
Looking at glib2, it's 5.1MB installed size. That includes both static
and shared libs. 1.3MB of that is static libs that we add to it to make
sure that syslog-ng can compile static. Is it really so hard to have a
library with a G in the name on a base system? Other option is to take a
version of syslog-ng that didn't depend on glib2. Compiling glib2 static
into syslog-ng will also make the binary bigger, so the savings of not
having glib2 on your system is actually even smaller than the 3.8MB that
would be "lost" when installing glib2 with only dynamic libs.
More information about the arch-dev-public