Re: Isn't cc the default compiler?
jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl writes:
> [Moved to -policy]
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 10:24:02AM +0200, Brederlow wrote:
> > I compiled a lot of packages on my system and often I see that programms
> > don't use cc as their compiler. Thus they don't use /etc/alternatives/cc.
> >
> > Unless somebody tells me a good reason for not using cc I will open bugs
> > against any Packages that just uses gcc for fun. I know that some Packages
> > need gcc explicitly, but that should be a realy small number.
>
> Policy manual, 3.3.1 binaries:
> : Generally the following compilation parameters should be used:
> : CC = gcc
>
> The alternatives mechanism is used for _local_ settings. Determining the
> compiler with which packages are built is IMO not a local issue, and should
> not be left up to the local system administrator.
>
> IMO, packages should use "CC = gcc" and "CXX = g++" unless this breaks the
> package (e.g. some packages combine C and C++ code; there C code should
> therefore be compiled with CC = egcc on architectures where GNU gcc is the
> primary compiler).
>
> Ray
Shouldn't a local setting of CC or CXX overwrite those settings? If
package allways take those compilers, theres no simple way to use a
newer gcc that isn't installed systemwide, or to use egcc or a
comercial cc. Its a pain for everyone who will compile a Package
himself with some non perfectly std. setup. Same counts for CFLAGS and
CXXFLAGS. Those values should NEVER be just overwritten by some preset
values. If the person compiling has set any of them, he will know why.
May the Source be with you.
Mrvn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: