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.