On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > Umm, how do you see your hack as a speed gain when it requires every > invocation of gcc to also invoke perl?!
I guess that means you didn't read the rest of the message. It's trivial to rewrite in C, and I offered to do so. > 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? No, it's very definitely a hack. However, like I explained before, it's a hack that doesn't define a new hack interface which would have to be supported when we do things the right way. > This is where I start to ignore everything you say. Apparently you started to ignore what I had to say at least a couple messages back? -- Raul
