Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>]

On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 10:44:09AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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.

I'm all for having the default-gcc-for-arch package do it.

Are we calling that package "gcc"?  I would hope so - keep dependencies
simple.

Dan

/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/