Re: Way to switch easily (Was: Re: Egcs, gcc, and Debian)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue 19 Aug 1997, Galen Hazelwood <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Shaya Potter wrote:
> > > I've decided emilio has the best idea. If I've got to use
> > > update-alternatives, I'll use it on cc and c++. gcc will always be
> > gcc,
> > > egcc will be egcs until it becomes the standard gcc package.
> > >
> > > Any objections before I start?
> > hmm. are you sure that egcs is going to lose options that gcc needs,
> > cause if
> > it's not, couldn't we use egcs as the standard gcc frontend, and have
> > it
> > default to gcc-220.127.116.11 backend.
> > I guess that's not an option if egcs is going to lose options gcc
> > needs.
> It's not necessarily likely, but it's still possible...and I don't like
> to take chances. Besides, this compromise solves the "gcc should always
> point to the stable gcc" objection.
I agree that gcc should always point to the stable gcc, but we could also do
that by having variables such as $VERSION and $BUILD and have them by default
point to the stable gcc, and have gcc be a shell script that calls egcs or
gcc.real or whatever.
Just a thought.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .