From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: GCC language front-ends Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:00:57 +0200 Message-ID: <87wqcvtss6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20140604212212.GA2429@debian> <87mwdsl5p2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140604214653.GA7612@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42776) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsXI1-0007et-2Y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:01:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsXHv-0003i5-1l for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:01:04 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:59355) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsXHu-0003hf-Rt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:00:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140604214653.GA7612@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Wed, 4 Jun 2014 23:46:53 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge skribis: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:33PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: [...] >> > Also, maybe we could drop one of the three gcc versions. >> The default package does C and C++. We could imagine another one that >> would in addition to Objective-C and FORTRAN, yes. That would save >> build time, at the expense of being somewhat confusing to the user IMO. > > Sorry, here I meant the version numbers 4.7.3, 4.8.2 and 4.9.0. Maybe we = could > drop 4.7.0? Eventually yes, but for now I think it may still be useful to have 4.7 around (for instance, as a developer it=E2=80=99s sometimes useful to test = with older compilers.) >> One of the GCC 4.8.2 is =E2=80=98gcc-final=E2=80=99 in base.scm. > > So this is the one that is used for compiling all our packages? Yes. > Could we then not drop the gcc-4.8.2 from gcc.scm and let the user > install gcc-final? Or otherwise, give it a different NAME? It=E2=80=99s been discussed several times, but there=E2=80=99s no satisfact= ory solution so far. Changing the name seems like a bad idea, because it=E2=80=99s real= ly gcc. Making either gcc-final or gcc-4.8 private isn=E2=80=99t an option be= cause they=E2=80=99re referred from elsewhere. Maybe package objects should have an extra property that says whether they should be hidden? >> > Is there a way of printing not the line 95 in which the base gcc packa= ge is >> > defined from which all others inherit, but the line where the actual p= ackage >> > is defined? >> Yes, good idea. >> I=E2=80=99ve just committed this patch: > > Hm, I meant in all generality for all packages that are inherited. Would > this be easily possible? Hmm, define-record-type* could be augmented with an inheritable? flag, and the =E2=80=98location=E2=80=99 field would be marked as non-inheritable= , something like that. Ludo=E2=80=99.