From: Albrecht S. <vms...@go...> - 2011-04-05 08:53:58
|
On 04.04.2011 16:48, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 01.04.2011 22:52, Keith Marshall wrote: >>> IMO, yes it can (and should) be removed; if it isn't a *strict* >>> dependency, then I believe that it really shouldn't be specified. >>> However, the final decision on this is Cesar's to make. > > What do you mean by strict? > > 1) The minimum set of packages such that all advertised features of gcc > work as described. In this case, pthreads-*-dev IS required, so that > -fopenmp -static works. I wouldn't say that this is a strict dependency of gcc. For me it works perfectly w/o libpthread-dev. For me as a user (aka software developer) this looks like: "I'm using a special feature (-fopenmp). If this *introduces* another dependency, then *I* must install another package to resolve this". [...] > I think the simplest and most rational approach is #1. And anyway, > we're talking about a package whose contents are: > > 41794 2010-02-18 07:24 include/pthread.h > 4666 2010-02-18 07:24 include/sched.h > 4263 2010-02-18 07:24 include/semaphore.h > 89574 2010-02-18 07:24 lib/libpthread.dll.a > [+ ? lib/libpthread.a] Yep, it's small, but as I wrote in my original post, it confused autoconf/configure of another software package only by its existence. That's why I started this thread, thinking "if it is not needed, then why install it"? Now, since my configure problem has been solved and I see that it is difficult to decide whether it is really needed (thanks for your explanations, BTW), I'm out of this discussion and leave it all to you developers to do The Right Thing. Thanks for all your efforts. Albrecht |