Re: [MiNT] Re[2]: GEM boost

[evan@coolrunningconcepts.com]

Quoting josephus <dogbird@earthlink.net>:
> I recognized that we got into this mess because we were porting tools.
> compilers, linkers, utilities.  The GNU part of Linux.   My Linux, Slack

I don't mind a GNU/MiNT, but I would also like the non-Unix people to 
be able to
use MiNT as well.  I don't want to see a situation where RPM and dynamic link
dependencies are used for all software.

> 9.0 and I can now extract RPMS I could not before.  Last time I looked I
> had 3.5.  Dependency HELL, yep.

I use a script called rpm2tgz (or something like that) - it converts the
information from the RPM to something I can worth with.  Normally I don't need
to bother with it all since Gentoo's portage is relatively complete, but the
RPMs for Atari weren't available in anything but RPM format, and I was trying
to install them to make a build system.  Since I was installing them into a
cross-compiler environment and not to a native system, I'd either have 
to build
RPM and pass a new --root to rpm and generate an RPM database for nothing, or
just convert them.  I chose the latter.

> Slackware uses TGZ.  It works like a champ.  RPM is just not useful on
> my Linux box.

From a system administrative stand-point tar.gz isn't the greatest since no
record is kept of what was installed where or what version.  Dependency
tracking is next to non-existant which is where I think your problem comes
from.  Gentoo even stores the time/date stamp and md5sum of all files so your
portage database can be used for system checks.

> I still have a working Mega4 and I still have all those versions of GCC.
>   I even installed 2.22 under mint. It does not work either.   I think
> there is something I should put into the environment but I do not know
> what that is.

2.22 is kinda old.   I think it just needs to be in your PATH - if you tell me
what the error is, I could probably tell you.  I actually had GCC 
running on my
old STe a long time ago.  Even found GCC for my 3b2!

> I have the message where M68000 was no longer supported.  I dont think
> it was ever supported or if it was I never undersold.

Hmm .. who's not supporting it?  GCC still has a target for m68000 and all
related targets.  Including the CPU32 systems and Coldfire systems.