gcc-2.95 RPM specfile for the contrib dir

Franz Sirl Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com
Fri Jul 16 08:34:00 GMT 1999

At 16:41 16.07.99 , Horst von Brand wrote:
>Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> said:
> > now that the directory structure and version numbers in gcc-2.95 are fixed
> > and having used it a few times now with this setup, I would like to ask if
> > this can go into the contrib dir of gcc-2.95?
> >
> > Currently the spec is heavily linux-centric and matches the RH6.0
> > egcs-1.1.2 setup closely.
>Thanks! I've been wanting to write something like this for some time,

:-) yeah, I know how this happens...

>OK, just some random comments:
>The gcc package name sounds wrong... the current ambiguity between the gcc
>C compiler and the GCC GNU Compiler Collection has to be resolved. Perhaps
>by capitalization? Then call the packages GCC-<language>, i.e., GCC-C,
>GCC-C++, GCC-Java, GCC-F77, GCC-chill, GCC-Ada, GCC-Pascal; and perhaps
>GCC-C++-runtime et al? (It is not *-devel, AFAIU)

Hmm, I agree with you here, I just didn't want to diverge to much from the 
RedHat setup for now, that makes it easier for the user to recognize the 
packages. eg. personally I don't like the splitout of cpp at all.
I would like RedHat and other distribution maintainers to comment on this, 
cause I think the package layout should be roughly the same across 
distributions IMHO.
So with your suggestion we would have:



>The Java stuff doesn't work without the Java library, you'd have to add
>that (as a separate source).

Yeah, on my to-do list... What's the status of libgcj? Is it 
usable/compilable without problems?

>I don't think it is wise to require the latest beta of binutils.

Oops, this is a requirement for PPC (and probably ARM). Probably should be 
wrapped with %ifarch for different architectures.

%ifarch ppc arm
Requires: binutils >=
Requires: binutils >=

>Why not "chill support from the GNU compiler collection", for instance? Or
>                        ^^^^
>even "chill compiler from..."?

Well, chill needs a better description anyway. You wanna do it? :-)

>Writing into the SRCDIR might not be possible, better keep the log in the

That's no problem, you have to have rights in SRCDIR/.., otherwise you 
can't use rpm at all :-).

>If the above sounds like criticism, well, it is. I just hope to help you
>making the spec file a bit better.

Good criticism helps to make things better :-)


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list