On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 07:15:16AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 07:07:15AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.
> It's also trivial to recompile the gcc binary so it does not pass -g to
> any of the compilers such as cc1 and cc1plus, but this is still a gross
> hack that completey changes the way the programs are _supposed_ to be
> built by the maintainer. It's a serious hack, and IMO, would be really
> dangerous, and I definetly would not implement any such thing just for the
> sake of not screwing things up for an entire architecture.
Please, we have plenty of seconds to this proposal (albeit the prior
version). It's a good proposal. It doesn't make any *demands* of the
developer, just some suggestions to make things a bit smoother in the long
run (for porters and people building from source packages at home), not to
mention more consistent.
So PLEASE. Stop splitting hairs! Developers don't participate in the policy
discussion for just this reason: a simple, beneficial proposal is turned
into a nightmare by the -policy group's ad-hoc beaurocratic process. Let's
just push this one through, people! (Ben, you can consider this a second...)
..Aaron Van Couwenberghe... ..email@example.com.. ..firstname.lastname@example.org....
Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org
There are three kinds of people in this world: those who can count and
those who can't.