Re: Bug#115353: gcc: cc & gcc should use update-alternatives mechanism
> > 'preferred' by whom? I think that this should be controlled by
> > sysadmin. The whole 'alternatives' system for making easy
> > for sysadmin to change defaults. Why gcc is exception?
>
> ld and as are exceptions as well.
>
> use the system compiler to build libfoo, change the system compiler to
> gcc-3.0, recompile libfoo (which now depends on libgcc1), upload this
> package, you'll get the mess.
I agree with Matthias on this one. The port maintainers for Debian are
determining which compiler is best for which arch. If there's a problem
with that selection on your chosen platform, it may be best to take it up
with them if you disagree (except i386...posting to debian-user or
debian-devel may be more appropriate). I've got five archs in my house
and have always found the chosen compilers to be the best for each (being
a fellow toolchain maintainer, I do quite a bit of testing). To use
alternatives for gcc et.al would invite disaster from a Debian developer
standpoint.
> > But if I want to do that on system level?
>
> use dpkg-divert
I have found that it's just as easy to compile a custom, local set of
gcc-defaults packages to suit my needs. I switch compilers quite a bit
for testing purposes and keep a set of gcc-defaults packages around to do
just that.
C
Reply to: