On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> Actually, looking at the code, it would cause devd to be built, but >> not installed without changes. Since NO_GXX is defined in the above >> scenario. I've started to think about how this might be fixed. It >> really is a 'don't build this because of toolchain depends' as a >> 'don't build his because I don't want this feature' intertwinglement. > > Also, what about dynamic executables that need libstdc++, but you still > don't want the build tools? I'm trying to remember the reason NO_CXX actually exists -- I believe it's because our sparc64 port didn't have working C++ for some period of time, so we didn't build C++ (and its dependencies). It could well be that NO_CXX is OBE, and we can eliminate it entirely? I.e., C++ support libraries and applications are now a basic requirement as DHCP is broken without them? Robert N M WatsonReceived on Mon Jun 20 2005 - 17:26:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:37 UTC