Re: gcc or cc?
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 09:36:27 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[standard build environment]
> I think that's a bogus argument; a broken gcc in /usr/local/bin would
> cause the same problem.
A broken gcc in /usr/local/bin caused the libc6 problem.
A standard build environment would therefore not have /usr/local in it's
path, but only directories that we can assume to be managed by the Debian
packaging system.
> It would perhaps be best to plan for the future:
> once kernel 2.2 is released, there's no reason why a system couldn't be
> exclusively egcs (i.e., no gcc). Why create an artificial dependency on
> gcc?
We're talking about making the current situation consistent, which means
that C code is compiled using FSF gcc. In the future, we might well switch
to egcs for that by having /usr/bin/gcc be egcs.
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
Reply to: