Stampede

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Mar 23 11:28:10 PST 2001


begin  Colin Marquardt quotation:

> HMM, AFAIK apt itself is there yet (since the days of the potato
> release), but the packages themselves are probably not fully up to
> speed on source dependencies. 

Source dependencies are exactly what I was speaking of, Colin.  With
apt 0.3.x, you have to make sure you satisfy all the Build-Depends,
manually.  What I was saying is that the betas are able, by contrast, to
take care of Build-Depends _for you_, when you build a source package.

> I am also not sure what the difference is between compiling with pgcc
> (is this still a separate compiler nowadays?) ...

Again:  Yes.

> ...and architecture flags to a current gcc.

"Current gcc" through 2.7.x did at best 486 optimisation on x86.
Pentium Compiler Group was founded, with participation from Intel and
CYGNUS, to do something about that situation.  First, they wrote pgcc, a 
one-pass compiler (which, accordingly, could not be portable to other
architectures).  Then, they wrote egcs, a multi-pass, portable compiler.
Both of these were forks of gcc.

PCC submitted their patches to the gcc 2.7.x maintainer.  Those patches
were ignored.  The Linux world, in response, gradually began ignoring
gcc 1.x, and looking to CYGNUS's ftp site for the canonical source for
their "gcc" (meaning egcs).  Eventually, FSF got a clue and transferred
custodianship of the gcc project to the egcs maintainers, thus ending
that fork.  egcs was given the designation gcc 2.8.x, at that time.
Current 2.9.x betas are based on egcs.

Meanwhile, pgcc remains available, and is a really sweet compiler, but
is x86-only.

Clearer?

-- 
Cheers,                                      Right to keep and bear
Rick Moen                                  Haiku shall not be abridged
rick at linuxmafia.com                           Or denied.  So there.



More information about the talk mailing list