You are not logged in.
well, archlinux really needs to support more then just C/C++ IMHO and i don't think the user should have to
1) edit his PKGBUILD and then
2) wait for the compile
I've been looking around to figure out how other distro's deal with seperating it into different packages and the conclusion i've come to is they build it with support for everything and then just seperate the files. I would be willing to do the work on this but i'm not sure howit should be handled in abs... what do you guys think?
Basically I see 2 options, have multiple PKGBUILDS all of which only enable support then language needed and strip out redundant files in all of them except C or simply put it into one PKGBUILD, but have that one split the files into seperate pkgs with some shell script, this would take more work, but would be a cleaner solution so you aren't compiling gcc 183293^32343 times to get support for multiple languages. And I'm not sure how the devs would react to a PKGBUILD making multiple packages.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
As soon as i figure out which way is the best to go, i'll start building the packages
RTFM
Offline
The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.
Offline
and?
the bottom of that discussion is what got me started for looking how to make them seperate... seems like it's exactly what judd was saying he would want to me...
RTFM
Offline
I'm all for having more languages. And the developers have similar thoughts as you have. Search for f77 or gcj on
http://www.archlinux.org/~jason/newslet … Feb-22.txt
Also check this bug report :
http://bugs.archlinux.org/?do=details&id=394
The Intel compilers are somewhat similar. The C++ and the Fortran packages provide common files. So what I did was to just let each PKGBUILD grab the files it needs. That would correspond to your first solution. Of course, my PKGBUILD did not need to compile anything, just "recollect" a package.
Offline
Seems I was slow with my reply ;-) ...
maccorin, yes, I think if you present a final, working solution, then that would be ideal. Now if only the developers would hint which way ;-) ....
Offline
and?
only wanted to be sure you know this link
the bottom of that discussion is what got me started for looking how to make them seperate... seems like it's exactly what judd was saying he would want to me...
i find it great that you want to try making separate gcc pkgs ... i for myself have locally a f77 enabled one, but i was also experimenting on creating a gcc-f77-addon as pkg .... not yet working fine (made a PKGBUILD that builds a normal gcc, saves the filelist and then creates the f77 enabled, and then removes the files existing in the normal one from the f77-enabled one)
i'm away for a week or so, but i'm working on it (till now without success and too many bad hacks) --- hope you have more success
The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.
Offline
wow, they really do seem to be thinking along the same lines as me in that newsletter, thanks for the reply, just FWIW, i'm willing/able to contribute my time to this project if it's ever decided how it should be done (one PKGBUILD or multiple i mean)
RTFM
Offline
dp:
ok, i will start working on it
i'll work on the java one for now, since your working on f77, for now i'll just make it a seperate PKGBUILD completely
RTFM
Offline
*cough cough*
RTFM
Offline
can anybody provide the PKGBUILD for gcj?
the URL do not work any longer and i removed it some time ago from my machine (to save space)
The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.
Offline
Offline
I could really use a gcc fortan compiler
I have gcc-g77 in my repo. Check my signature.
Offline
For fortran you could try f2c, it is in the official repos.
Offline