Re: Way to switch easily (Was: Re: Egcs, gcc, and Debian)
> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > CC = gcc
> > in makefiles for? Thats exacly where the compiler should be changed.
> No. But not all makefiles live up to this standard. Even, (ahem) my own
> dont. We just use cc directly as needed.
> And when installing new packages on your system from the net which dont
> adhere to this standar, many people wont have the knowhow etc to set this
> in the makefile, or even know that it should be set in the makefile.
> So making the compiler be transparent to the makefile is the best
> solution. Symlinks solve everything =]
> Manong Dibos *elCapitanoDelBoholClub*
Shame for you if you don't use it and shame for all Makefiles that don't
If people compile such programms it's there own fault and the
programmers are to blame for not using it. Every programm should have an
Imakefile or a configure script for the source and then you will have a
CC=gcc, programms that don't use it are eighther so small that it's not
worth (only main.c and nothing else) or should be erased anyway. If they
don't have proper makefiles they won't work on different systems. You
will get problems installing them as users or if you're libs are in
different places. There are so many things that go wrong with stupid
Makefiles the MAYBE missing link for the compiler is not really trouble.
Having a link from stdcc to gcc or egcc or whatever cc one uses would be
an option, but having a link called gcc that doesn't point to gcc isn't
a good thing. Some programms expect gcc when they call gcc and they are
totally right to assume that they will get gcc when they call it.
May the source be with you.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .