Re: practices for porters (was Re: large number of source package ...)
Dan Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> > A section addressed to i386 people giving suggestions to maximize
> > liklihood of an easy port would be nice. I have learned some things
> > slowly and now have to go back and check all my packages.
> > eg, The binary named 'egcc' is not available for all
> > architectures.
>
> Actually, it is if egcs is installed at all, in the recent versions.
> And if egcc is specified, then the presumption is that the most recent
> version is probably a good idea.
According to /usr/doc/gcc/README (which should be
/usr/doc/gcc/README.Debian, IMHO), maintainers should be invoking the
C compiler as 'cc', the C++ compiler as 'c++', and one should only use
egcc if I'm building C code to work right with C++ code.
You imply that this information is wrong. However, I've found that
it's far better to stick with the generic names and assume that
porters have the proper compilation environment (as well as a hell of
a lot easier to maintain in the long run).
Color me confused...!
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: