Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 06:18:33AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Currently the gcc-2.95.2 package has binaries {c89,gcc,gcov}{,-2.95}.
> > g++-2.95.2 has binaries g++-2.95 and g++. gcc-2.97 has the gcc-2.97
> > binary and g++-2.97 the g++-2.97 binary. Both gcc-2.9x and g++-2.9x
> > packages provide an alternative cc/c++. By using gcc/g++ you get the
> > default compiler per architecture.
>
> So cc can be the one or the other, but gcc will be fixed by
> architecture? That doesn't seem to make sense. A lot of packages just
> use cc to build.
Agreed. Then only the default-gcc-for-arch package provides the
alternative cc/c++. Or can we drop the handling of cc/c++ by
alternatives? For f77 that's not a solution, because f2c is the
preferred f77 on some platforms. pc is provided by free-pascal as
well. java isn't yet in the game.
Reply to: