[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c8e5da102149751df52f5d426e2ab36@smtp1.ispfr.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 23:00:33 +0200
From: <nicolas@...lier-web.com>
To: <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: musl path
Ah... Okay :)
I think that to have a separate tarball for the wrapper is the better
way...
Do you plan to generate wrapper for the others C Compiler (PCC /
TinyCC...) ?
Cheers,
Nick
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:27:36 -0400, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:14:33PM +0200, nicolas@...lier-web.com wrote:
>> > prefix=we_dont_use_prefix_at_all
>> > includedir=/usr/include
>> > libdir=/lib
>> > ALL_TOOLS=
>>
>> Thanks :)
>> And is there a way to remove the gcc wrapper ?
>
> Setting ALL_TOOLS blank will prevent it from being installed.
>
> By the way, I'm thinking of moving the gcc wrapper to a separate
> repository/tarball along with improving it, at some point in the near
> future. I don't really like the clutter of having it
> distributed/installed with musl, and as a separate standalone tool I
> could make it work with uclibc and other libcs as well..
>
> I'd welcome comments from users who like or dislike this idea.
>
> Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
