[arch-projects] Proposal for additional gcc packages

Ben Mazer ben at benmazer.net
Tue Aug 24 21:18:55 EDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 17:54, Jason Chu wrote:
> This is something I've been kicking around for a bit.  Having other gcc
> packages like gcc-f77 and gcc-java would be helpful, 1) to shut people like
> this up (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=6376) and 2) for people
> who actually need a f77 compiler (or a java compiler or whatever).

Well, would including the additional languages in the default GCC be
that big of a deal? How much size would it add? What exact problems
would crop up?

I'm under the opinion that if there's no serious drawbacks, the
languages should just be added to the default package. Simply include
the languages that there is a demand for. In this case, Java and F77 are
in demand. 

It seems having one GCC package actually follows Arch's philosophy
better. Just like we don't separate Python and Python-tk. We choose the
best options (in this case, languages). Another example where we choose
one "big" package is with -dev libraries. 

While having these "gcc plugin" packages definitely has the "nifty"
factor, one big package seems a bit more practical on the surface. Like
I said, I don't know what exact problems there are. 

Also, like you said, if the GCC package gets upgraded before the gcc
plugins, pacman will bitch. This seems like it's adding even more work,
and if these are in Extra, it kind of messes with the CURRENT
independence Judd is trying to have. With one package, everything gets
upgraded at once, or nothing gets upgraded until it's all working.

Just a thought. 

Now remember, we can't ALL sign with an X
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/attachments/20040824/bb36332f/attachment.pgp>

More information about the arch-projects mailing list