Jukka Heino wrote:
Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
[...] - gcc 4.0.2 ? - bash 3.1 ??
Some notes: - gcc4 will require some patches, however, danm's 64-bit iso has some of them and is using gcc4 [...] I can do a test run on current contrib ports to see how many fail when compiled with gcc 4.0.2. I'm okay with either bash 3.0 or a patched 3.1, but I recommend we stick with X.org 6.9 for now--it's essentially the same code base anyway.
as far as i know, upgrading to glibc 2.3.6 makes life with gcc4 much easier... so i'd suggest to upgrade that first (just change version and remove the patch in the port... at least that's what i can remember now), before the test run! anyway if the 2.2 will be based on gcc4 (and that's how i'd like it... if it works...) i think that it has to be built from scratch... but hey, i forgot that the Makefile can bootstrap the new toolchain automagically :)
There's one important question we have to answer: do we want to move x11/firefox/gtk back to opt? As mentioned in the previous thread about this, I'd prefer to move them back, and so is Simone.
Yes, I think we better keep core to the BASICS (which in my opinion is a text-only environment suitable for setting up gateways etc. and extending for other purposes).
yes i fully agree with you... I mean the user should not be left to chose which of the core ports s/he wants to install... as they should really be the ones s/he can't live without... But having a few extra packages might really come handy to the ones with not-so-fast processor/internet connection (firefox takes 4.5 hours to build on my comp)... But i think the boundary between the ones that are needed in a minimal system and the extra ones should be neat... and all in all those extras are just the 3 we're talking about... :) So i think they should be kept out of the iso... regards, giorgio