On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 07:18:05AM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote: > perl invocation per gcc invocation?? You Better Let Users Turn It OFF. > Do not depend on everyone wanting it, whatever it does (did you notice > that: I don't KNOW what it does, nor do I CARE.) > > You can consider this a second SO LONG AS it can be turned off. If not > and you force me to use it, then I need to cosider alternatives... > > Users have THE FINAL SAY as to what happens and what does not happen > on their machine. I speak now as a user: YOU BETTER GIVE ME A CHOICE.
Since I suggested the gcc cover: That was not intended as a policy proposal. That was an example of how you might speed up autobuilders without a policy change. [To elaborate slightly: If you were running an autobuilder, you'd set up a directory with this cover program named gcc in it. If the autobuilder is building a package whose name doesn't have contain "lib", "-dev", "-dbg" or any blacklisted names it would arrange $PATH so that the directory with the cover program is before /usr/bin/. This would yield an immediate speed improvement for the autobuilder, without waiting for any packages to be changed, and without a policy change.] Once again: that was not a policy proposal, so there's no need to second it. -- Raul
