Re: Exult

["David A. Greene" <greened@eecs.umich.edu>]

mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:

> > any particular reason this package was compiled with gcc-3.0?
> > AFAIK gcc-3.0 will not be the default compiler in Woody.  If
> > I'm wrong, that would be wonderful, but it seems packages
> > in Woody should be compiled with its default compiler if
> > possible.
> You mean, the default *C/C++* compiler for Woody.  I know quite a


Yes, I thought that was obvious.  :)

> of my packages.  Having said that, I really don't see whats wrong with 
> depending on gcc-3.0 stuff...  compare it with depending on rep, 
> teTeX, and lisp-compiler (for example).

Because there is duplication.  A "good enough" C++ compiler exists 

as the default in Woody and will be so AFAIK at release.  It is
an entirely gratuitous dependency as there are no special features
in gcc-3.0 that Exult needs.  Why require users of Woody to install
libraries for a compiler they may never use?

There is the additional concern that the new libraries may not
even make it into Woody.  Then we would have no Exult in
Woody and that would be very unfortunate indeed.

I'm all for pushing technology, but in this case gcc-3.0 just
isn't stable enough to be the default for Woody.  I really,
really wish it could be.  But if it won't be, I think packages
should only compile against it if absolutely necessary
(language standardization and/or performance issues, for
example).  That said, I hope we can get a point release of
gcc3 into woody as the default.  I'm not holding my
breath, though if it happens I will be entirely happy if
Exult is compiled against it.  :)

                                -Dave

--

"Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music,
 and you know how big he was."  --  James P. Johnson