[gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Martin Volf]

Hello,

is there an other way to emerge gcc without ada,f77,objc except editing the .ebuild file? I don't need these languages, maybe the build would be a little bit faster without them. Or am I wrong? I was quite disappointed when I saw them built. Couldn't this be documented somewhere?

Thanks.

-- 
Martin Volf


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Johannes Findeisen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hello  martin,

i don't think there is a way to do it without editing the ebuild file... there 
are no USE flags for ada,f77 and objc. you can see it in the ebuild of gcc, 
because there is a part where the java USE flag is used. it should be the 
same for for the other languages too.

i would edit the ebuild and maybe say it to the developers in bugtraq, that we 
need USE flags for ada, f77 and objc. i don't think that they are inventing 
some new USE flags for this problem because it are big changes in the gcc 
ebuild... maybe ask the maintainer or author of the actual ebuild script...

i know, that this is no help but i hope this information is usefull for you...

i think the idea is not bad to add some more USE flags because not all people 
needs the other languages.

kind regards
hanez

On Wednesday 01 January 2003 17:57, Martin Volf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there an other way to emerge gcc without ada,f77,objc except editing the
> .ebuild file? I don't need these languages, maybe the build would be a
> little bit faster without them. Or am I wrong? I was quite disappointed
> when I saw them built. Couldn't this be documented somewhere?
>
> Thanks.

- -- 
begin  .signature
question: is it a feature to execute code in emails?
	i don't think so!
end
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+FEre1e37d/WNRDURAuHhAJ4yvFZh7Ml74FVcCxBcHKQDGS9aDQCeMSHK
m/GzxOevSUdjn1X27cDkPrw=
=Csx9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2054 bytes --]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:21:12 +0100
Johannes Findeisen <mailman@hanez.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> hello  martin,
> 
> i don't think there is a way to do it without editing the ebuild
> file... there are no USE flags for ada,f77 and objc. you can see it in
> the ebuild of gcc, because there is a part where the java USE flag is
> used. it should be the same for for the other languages too.
> 
> i would edit the ebuild and maybe say it to the developers in bugtraq,
> that we need USE flags for ada, f77 and objc. i don't think that they
> are inventing some new USE flags for this problem because it are big
> changes in the gcc ebuild... maybe ask the maintainer or author of the
> actual ebuild script...
> 
> i know, that this is no help but i hope this information is usefull
> for you...
> 
> i think the idea is not bad to add some more USE flags because not all
> people needs the other languages.
> 

Too much of an overload on USE flags if you ask me.  Anyhow, ada support
do not really compile in, and f77 and objc are not that big ones.  If
you disable java, then you should be down a 1/4 or 1/3 of the time
already.


> kind regards
> hanez
> 
> On Wednesday 01 January 2003 17:57, Martin Volf wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there an other way to emerge gcc without ada,f77,objc except
> > editing the.ebuild file? I don't need these languages, maybe the
> > build would be a little bit faster without them. Or am I wrong? I
> > was quite disappointed when I saw them built. Couldn't this be
> > documented somewhere?
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> - -- 
> begin  .signature
> question: is it a feature to execute code in emails?
> 	i don't think so!
> end
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE+FEre1e37d/WNRDURAuHhAJ4yvFZh7Ml74FVcCxBcHKQDGS9aDQCeMSHK
> m/GzxOevSUdjn1X27cDkPrw=
> =Csx9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Achim Gottinger]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Johannes Findeisen" <mailman@hanez.org>
To: "Martin Volf" <mv@inv.cz>; <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> hello  martin,
>
> i don't think there is a way to do it without editing the ebuild file...
there
> are no USE flags for ada,f77 and objc. you can see it in the ebuild of
gcc,
> because there is a part where the java USE flag is used. it should be the
> same for for the other languages too.
>
> i would edit the ebuild and maybe say it to the developers in bugtraq,
that we
> need USE flags for ada, f77 and objc. i don't think that they are
inventing
> some new USE flags for this problem because it are big changes in the gcc
> ebuild... maybe ask the maintainer or author of the actual ebuild
script...
>
> i know, that this is no help but i hope this information is usefull for
you...
>
> i think the idea is not bad to add some more USE flags because not all
people
> needs the other languages.
>
Hi,

Maybe the gcc ebuild can be splitted in different packages gcc/g++, f77,
objc, ada, java. Separated tarballs for these are already available (
http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/sourceware/gcc/releases/gcc-3.2.1/  ).

bye achim~

> kind regards
> hanez
>
> On Wednesday 01 January 2003 17:57, Martin Volf wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there an other way to emerge gcc without ada,f77,objc except editing
the
> > .ebuild file? I don't need these languages, maybe the build would be a
> > little bit faster without them. Or am I wrong? I was quite disappointed
> > when I saw them built. Couldn't this be documented somewhere?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> - --
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+FEre1e37d/WNRDURAuHhAJ4yvFZh7Ml74FVcCxBcHKQDGS9aDQCeMSHK
> m/GzxOevSUdjn1X27cDkPrw=
> =Csx9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Johannes Findeisen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hello achim, 

<snip>
> Maybe the gcc ebuild can be splitted in different packages gcc/g++, f77,
> objc, ada, java. Separated tarballs for these are already available (
> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/sourceware/gcc/releases/gcc-3.2.1/  ).
</snip>

that would be a nice idea... we didn't need more USE flags and could give the 
seperated packages a special name like gcc-f77, gcc-java and so on.

maybe there are some people around who want to do this work... if not, i'm 
really interested in helping out... maybe there are some people who have 
allready tried it out...???

this is hard work, so lets go on...

i'm looking at this tonight...

kind regards
johannes

- -- 
Key fingerprint = DCD0 990F 6BD8 6E5F 439D  4257 D5ED FB77 F58D 4435
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=you%40hanez.org&op=index

begin  .signature
question: is it a feature to execute code in emails?
	i don't think so!
end
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+FdDY1e37d/WNRDURAkS6AKCVRD4kEykx2cJLi4xECebaRTgV2gCgxCEu
MxF/vySvFQ+lyuRWOfQJS9E=
=7UXL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Achim Gottinger]

> that would be a nice idea... we didn't need more USE flags and could give
the
> seperated packages a special name like gcc-f77, gcc-java and so on.
>
> maybe there are some people around who want to do this work... if not, i'm
> really interested in helping out... maybe there are some people who have
> allready tried it out...???
>
> this is hard work, so lets go on...
>
> i'm looking at this tonight...

I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages need
gcc-core and the additional sub-package.
how do you think about an eclass for these builds?

achim~

>
> kind regards
> johannes
>
> - --
> Key fingerprint = DCD0 990F 6BD8 6E5F 439D  4257 D5ED FB77 F58D 4435
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=you%40hanez.org&op=index
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+FdDY1e37d/WNRDURAkS6AKCVRD4kEykx2cJLi4xECebaRTgV2gCgxCEu
> MxF/vySvFQ+lyuRWOfQJS9E=
> =7UXL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Johannes Findeisen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi achim,

<snip>
> I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages need
> gcc-core and the additional sub-package.
> how do you think about an eclass for these builds?
</snip>

an eclass for this thing would be great. afaik the tarballs are all compiling 
the same way. i have looked at the other eclasses and there is allready an 
gcc.eclass, so we need to think about a name and some other things.

in my opinion, the standard gcc ebuilds should be there for bootstrapping. is 
it possible to use the intel c++ compiler icc for bootstrapping?

if this is possible then we could decide to use the gcc compiler without 
java,f77 etc... during the bootstrap process.

i've looked for you on irc but you didn't were there.

i'm really interested in doing some work on this... i'm not a very good 
developer but i'm understanding the eclasses and ebuild script without big 
problems. the only thing is that i'm not working on things like this every 
day.

i've seen that you have retired from the gentoo dev team... is it true???

kind regards
johannes ... ;-)

- -- 
Key fingerprint = DCD0 990F 6BD8 6E5F 439D  4257 D5ED FB77 F58D 4435
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=you%40hanez.org&op=index

begin  .signature
question: is it a feature to execute code in emails?
	i don't think so!
end
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+GC9p1e37d/WNRDURAq0nAJ9Tn0fPyEw5uiY6fsipxuuz/CdLAwCgnjZy
a7/cOwqhc+TuYYCKcuA6cJM=
=tx2F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1696 bytes --]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:13:06 +0100
Johannes Findeisen <mailman@hanez.org> wrote:


> <snip>
> > I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages
> > need gcc-core and the additional sub-package.
> > how do you think about an eclass for these builds?
> </snip>
> 
> an eclass for this thing would be great. afaik the tarballs are all
> compiling the same way. i have looked at the other eclasses and there
> is allready an gcc.eclass, so we need to think about a name and some
> other things.
> 
> in my opinion, the standard gcc ebuilds should be there for
> bootstrapping. is it possible to use the intel c++ compiler icc for
> bootstrapping?
> 
> if this is possible then we could decide to use the gcc compiler
> without java,f77 etc... during the bootstrap process.
> 

Well, to split them up is not really the Gentoo way.  Part of why
the vim split cause some grumbling, but until some support needed
are added for portage to fix this, will have to stay.

Then, using USE flags will be the more appropriate way.  Problem
though is that to add a flag that only gets used once ....

I think for the time being, it should stay as is ... the more advanced
user that really have this as an issue, could always edit the ebuild.
Isn't this part of the simplicity and bash nature of ebuilds ... being
able to edit things to suit ?

We have talked about being able to group use flags, or some different
strategy to fix this sort of thing, but until Nick and the gang can
hammer something out, I'd rather wait before doing something that will
need to be reversed again.


Regards,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Martin Volf]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:42:26 +0200
Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > <snip>
> 
> I think for the time being, it should stay as is ... the more advanced
> user that really have this as an issue, could always edit the ebuild.
> Isn't this part of the simplicity and bash nature of ebuilds ... being
> able to edit things to suit ?

This is OK, but it should be documented. And one must be careful, because emerge sync will overwrite user-edited ebuild.

What about making "c,c++" the default and he who needs e.g. fortran would edit the ebuild or do something like GCC_LANGS="c,c++,fortran" (as Richard Lärkäng suggested), which is IMHO equivalent to using new USE flags. Mozilla ebuild also uses "private" USE flags, e.g. moznoirc moznomail moznocompose (BTW, that's how I have built it).

-- 
Martin Volf


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Richard Lärkäng]

On Sunday 05 January 2003 16.42, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:13:06 +0100
>
> > <snip>
>
> Well, to split them up is not really the Gentoo way.  Part of why
> the vim split cause some grumbling, but until some support needed
> are added for portage to fix this, will have to stay.
>
> Then, using USE flags will be the more appropriate way.  Problem
> though is that to add a flag that only gets used once ....
>
> I think for the time being, it should stay as is ... the more advanced
> user that really have this as an issue, could always edit the ebuild.
> Isn't this part of the simplicity and bash nature of ebuilds ... being
> able to edit things to suit ?
>
> We have talked about being able to group use flags, or some different
> strategy to fix this sort of thing, but until Nick and the gang can
> hammer something out, I'd rather wait before doing something that will
> need to be reversed again.
>
>
> Regards,

How about something like the way alsa-driver does it.

i.e. something like GCC_LANGS="c,c++,java"

Richard Lärkäng

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Johannes Findeisen]

hey richard,

> How about something like the way alsa-driver does it.
>
> i.e. something like GCC_LANGS="c,c++,java"

that would be great and it' s the easiest way... sometimes things could be 
done so easy, but my mind is not allways thinking this way....

this is a solution, where everyone could configure it this way before the 
bootstrap is started... anyway, java must be activated thrue the USE vars 
because we else have two places to change this...

please think about it...

kind regards
hanez... ;-)
-- 
Key fingerprint = DCD0 990F 6BD8 6E5F 439D  4257 D5ED FB77 F58D 4435
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=you%40hanez.org&op=index

begin  .signature
question: is it a feature to execute code in emails?
	i don't think so!
end

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Achim Gottinger]

>
> hi achim,
>
> <snip>
> > I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages need
> > gcc-core and the additional sub-package.
> > how do you think about an eclass for these builds?
> </snip>
>
Hi Johannes,

the problem ist that gcc (the binary) must be build with java,fortran,ada
support,
otherwise gcj... do not work, so it's not possible to use the separated
tarballs.
The only optimization might be to use separate packages for the
(java,fortran,ada)
libs and stick with use vars for the gcc built-in stuff. I agree with the
guys which want
private use flags like for mozilla otherwise we're in trouble with the
allready existing java use
flag.
As an alternative the gcc-related java use flag can be called javac or gjc,
fortran and ada should not make problems.

>
> in my opinion, the standard gcc ebuilds should be there for bootstrapping.
is
> it possible to use the intel c++ compiler icc for bootstrapping?

have not even given icc a try so i simply dont know at the moment, you might
want to take
a look in the bootstrap.sh script and modify it to install icc++ after the
second gcc build.

i tried last week to make a separate package for the binutils and gcc stuff.
it uses gcc-core and builds
binutils and gcc(one-step no bootstrapping) together. This can be used as a
replacement for the first binutils/gcc build during
bootstrapping and saves some time.

>
> if this is possible then we could decide to use the gcc compiler without
> java,f77 etc... during the bootstrap process.
>
> i've looked for you on irc but you didn't were there.
> i've seen that you have retired from the gentoo dev team... is it true???

yeah, i ran out of money two years ago because i only worked on gentoo
for 14 month without getting sponsors or making it a sellable (and of course
without looking for other part time jobs). Additionally daniel and i
had alot of communication trouble after sticking together on this project
for such a long time.
these troubles are out of the way now but i'm abit short in time now, that's
why you will not see
me on irc (it eats time) and that's why i'm labled as an hall of fame
developer (a title, i personally really like).

bye achim~


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Matthew Kennedy]

"Achim Gottinger" <achim@gentoo.org> writes:

> >
> > hi achim,
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I agree and already too a short look. looks like all these packages need
> > > gcc-core and the additional sub-package.
> > > how do you think about an eclass for these builds?
> > </snip>
> >
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> the problem ist that gcc (the binary) must be build with java,fortran,ada
> support,
> otherwise gcj... do not work, so it's not possible to use the separated

IIRC, only C and C++ support need to be built for GCJ (at least this
is the case for the GCC-3.3 branch from CVS).


When I first saw this "too many languages" complaint in bugzilla, I
had a WTF kind of reaction. If f77, objc were made USE flags, what
happens when the user tries to emerge something months from now which
depends on f77 -- it would fail at ./configure most likely. 

Now I see this thread has solved that problem by proposing
gcc-{objc,java,f77} which is kinda messy like the VIM thing and mostly
un-Gentoo-like IMO, but anyway. What happens when the user has
gentoo-core, and emerge, say, octave which requires gcc-f77 to be
emerged. Can f77 truly be built outside GCC's own build system? If its
possible, what about java,objc,ada?

If not, then gcc-{c++,java,objc,ada} are merely aliases for emerging
gcc all-over, correct? 

Personally, I feel the GCC we build should be as complete and
featureful as possible. After all, your compiler is the most important
part of a source-based distro. 

My second preference is actually the USE flag approach. Only our more
knowledgeable users are going to tweak compiler USE flags and when
their ebuilds break with "Checking for a working
f77... (no)\n***Error: no fortran compiler found.***" they will know
exactly what to do (adjust their USE flags and re-emerge gcc).

Yes it seems a bit manual. Some support in portage might be need to
make it automatic (but I won't guess how hard that would be for
carpaski).

BTW, if we want to future proof ourselves a bit, some of the other
front ends currently in development are: GPC (pascal), Cobol, G95
(fortran 95), modula 2 and ghdl (like vhdl).

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Johannes Findeisen]

hello achim, hello all,

i have worked a bit on it all but after some replies from the other devs i 
think, we should not change something now. matthew kennedy and martin 
schlemmer gave some good reasons to not change these things in gentoo... 
maybe theyre right, because this really could give some problems at some 
time.

it would be an interesting thing for me to do these changes but if this is not 
the way the distro is setting on, its better to make no changes...

it was interesting to hear the opinions of other people and maybe it helped 
only talking about it.

the good thing: now we have the info in our mailinglist archives. ;-)

kind regards
johannes

-- 
Key fingerprint = DCD0 990F 6BD8 6E5F 439D  4257 D5ED FB77 F58D 4435
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=you%40hanez.org&op=index

begin  .signature
question: is it a feature to execute code in emails?
	i don't think so!
end

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Marko Mikulicic]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Johannes Findeisen wrote:
| hello achim,
|
| <snip>
|
|>Maybe the gcc ebuild can be splitted in different packages gcc/g++, f77,
|>objc, ada, java. Separated tarballs for these are already available (
|>http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/sourceware/gcc/releases/gcc-3.2.1/  ).
|
| </snip>
|
| that would be a nice idea... we didn't need more USE flags and could
give the
| seperated packages a special name like gcc-f77, gcc-java and so on.
|
| maybe there are some people around who want to do this work... if not,
i'm
| really interested in helping out... maybe there are some people who have
| allready tried it out...???

I don't like this idea. If I remember correctly, in order to build f77,
java or objc
the build system need to bootstrap at least the C compiler. Compiling
those packages
separately it's a waste of time.
~ I like the gentoo way of packaging software. I think it is better to
release a package
with the same contents of the sources provided by the author. Optional
software
can be selected with USE flags.
~ Eventually, if the problem arises in other packages, it could be
possible to make
a per-ebuild "use" flag, perhaps with useflag syntax (gcc-xxx), or
another system.

Marko

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+Fep4j0pLiOk7oZoRApUiAKCfjB6LeS/CaAsJXU5QoMGH6Jzx8wCghbQl
2p7mFjuB05zNv5/fwx6n9cM=
=vQ87
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc without ada,f77,objc ?

[Achim Gottinger]

> I don't like this idea. If I remember correctly, in order to build f77,
> java or objc
> the build system need to bootstrap at least the C compiler. Compiling
> those packages
> separately it's a waste of time.

too bad but it's true in fact you can pass the language you want to compile
with the -x option to gcc ;/
i thought splitting whould prevent users from unneccessary downloads,
since SRC_URI can not be use-dependant this would have been a workaround.
so we must stick with one gcc package atm (maybe the f77, java objc libraris
can be splitted if they do not require a gcc rebuild, but
not worth the effort, except you are really mad about how long libjava takes
to build if you have nedd your java use-flag for something completely
different) .

So i agree that gcc-[language] use flags are the way to go

cu achim~

another thing, i took a look at the gcc install notes and i think that an
ada compiler is not build at the moment
>
> Marko
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQE+Fep4j0pLiOk7oZoRApUiAKCfjB6LeS/CaAsJXU5QoMGH6Jzx8wCghbQl
> 2p7mFjuB05zNv5/fwx6n9cM=
> =vQ87
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list