Re: Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
>
> /usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
The short answer is no, gcc is just package built from gcc-defaults that
points to the preferred compiler on your architecture (most likely
gcc-2.95). There are good reasons why alternatives weren't used for gcc
packages, trust us :-)
If you wish to switch your system over to use
gcc-3.0 by default, you may locally modify and rebuild the gcc-defaults
source package so that it sets up the links for you. A word of warning,
though, if there are any other users on your system that expect the
compiler to behave as 2.95.x has done in the past, swapping this
system-wide may not be a good idea. If you're just looking to test gcc
3.0.x with your own code, it's usually preferred to alter your environment
variables (ie. CC=gcc-3.0) or makefiles to accomplish this.
Side-note to Matthias:
Should we do a debconf item for this? I'm getting tired of seeing this
question pop up at least once every two weeks for months now...and I'm
sure I'm not alone :-)
C
Reply to: