On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 09:47:32PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > Umm, what about libraries that purposely compile -dbg packages? This > > is a silly idea, it's not a good idea for the autobuilders to muck > > around with the way the package is meant to be built. > > Good point. > > Of course, this is solvable -- for example, build those packages in a > different autobuilder environment (perhaps make the cc cover sensitive > to an environmental variable). > > This would make the autobuilders a bit more complicated -- but we are > talking about optimizing the autobuilders, so that's probably ok. Also, > this sort of implementation would yield a far greater speed improvement > over the short run than your current policy proposal would.
Umm, how do you see your hack as a speed gain when it requires every invocation of gcc to also invoke perl?! > But what you're doing right now: optimizing a hack... That's more > likely to get in the way of the long term solution than anything else. > [If we had a decent source dependency, etc. design I'm sure what you're > proposing would fit right in -- with a few minor changes. But if we > go ahead with the optimization when we're still at hack implementation > stage we're asking for backwards compatability problems.] So you are saying that my proposal, one which helps define some build specs, is a hack, and your suggestion to write a wrapper around gcc to change the way packages are built by default is not? This is where I start to ignore everything you say. Ben
