Re: pkgsrc packaging of base?

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
:> i'm opposing the packaging of base, yet i'd like to see file 
:> registration (also for what somebody might call "package":  sendmail, 
:> bind, whatever, basically what we have as WANT_* or NO_* already), so 
:> that stale files can be removed and unneeded parts not be built.
:
:Yeah,
:
:it would be cool to be able to e.g. installworld with WANT_GCC40 and 
:later 'make upgrade' (or a similar thing) would remove it again from the 
:system when WANT_GCC40 is removed from make.conf.
:
:Sascha

    I dunno.  It would be fairly easy to do, all the gcc 4.x bits are in
    just a handful of directories so if you want to submit a patch set to
    the make upgrade target's Makefile to do it, go ahead.

    This could result in some degree of foot-shooting, however, if there
    are binary dependancies on gcc-4.x bits from a gcc 4.x built and installed
    world.  You'd have to do some reasearch to see if there are such issues.
    A conditional in the make upgrade Makefile to check for gcc 4.x built
    pieces and disallow the removal might be necessary.

    Please keep in mind, however, that we will eventually be migrating to
    GCC 4.x anyhow.  The WANT_GCC40 variable is just a convenience.  It will
    eventually become mandatory (be removed and 4.x would be built by 
    default anyhow), the same way 3.x became mandatory when we were migrating
    from 2.95.x to 3.x.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>