Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 01:45:38AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> At http://master.debian.org/~doko/gcc you find 2.95.3 and 2.97
> packages which can coexist. The gcc-snapshot packages are gone.
>
> All binaries are installed versioned, the 2.95.3 binaries linked to
> the unversioned names. To use the 2.97 versions, configure packages
> with CC=gcc-2.97 CXX=g++-2.97 ./configure ...
>
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 08:25:03PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > The packages now installed versioned driver names (gcc-2.95). The
> > > plain driver name (gcc) is provided by an alternative. Not sure if
> > > this will stay like this or if the driver names should be hardcoded as
> > > symbolic links and for each architecture it should be decided which
> > > compiler version to use as the default version.
> > >
> > > advantages for alternatives are:
> > > - switching between compiler versions is easy.
> > >
> > > disadvantages are:
> > > - you don't know which compiler was used, when looking for bug reports
> >
> > PLEASE hardcode it! That's a pretty stiff disadvantage.
>
> Done. So each architecture has to decide, which one to use as the default.
How is the default setup? With alternatives? Are the alternative
priorities set on a per arch basis?
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: