Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)
- To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
- Cc: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>, debian-toolchain@lists.debian.org, chris@debian.org, cts@debian.org, pb@debian.org
- Subject: Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:56:43 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20001225225643.A11344@drow.them.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>, Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>, debian-toolchain@lists.debian.org, chris@debian.org, cts@debian.org, pb@debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 14919.5865.640784.115021@gargle.gargle.HOWL>; from doko@cs.tu-berlin.de on Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 10:44:09AM +0100
- References: <[🔎] 14915.43663.613741.476734@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <[🔎] 20001224013801.A17280@drow.them.org> <[🔎] 14918.39090.319083.441402@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <[🔎] 20001224203315.Z18814@visi.net> <[🔎] 14918.55465.897995.476376@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <[🔎] 20001225023040.A7528@drow.them.org> <[🔎] 14919.5865.640784.115021@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
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 |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: