From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: GCC language front-ends Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 23:46:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20140604214653.GA7612@debian> References: <20140604212212.GA2429@debian> <87mwdsl5p2.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53854) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsJ1f-0006tJ-0y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:47:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsJ1X-0003pP-IN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:47:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mwdsl5p2.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:34:33PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > That would be too big. Plus, when you say “all”, do you really mean Ada > and Java for instance? These make things definitely bigger. Okay. > > 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? > One of the GCC 4.8.2 is ‘gcc-final’ in base.scm. So this is the one that is used for compiling all our packages? 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? > > Is there a way of printing not the line 95 in which the base gcc package is > > defined from which all others inherit, but the line where the actual package > > is defined? > Yes, good idea. > I’ve just committed this patch: Hm, I meant in all generality for all packages that are inherited. Would this be easily possible? Andreas