Re: update-alternatives and gcc

[Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org>]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:24:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Caldwell wrote:
> > Anyone know what the pre-packaged kernel-images are compiled
> > with? I haven't used one beyond a base install in years.
> 
> Yes, they were very carefully compiled with good old 2.95, until mid-may
> week, when they finally switched over to using 3.2.
> 

That raises a couple of more general issues.

I thought the default compiler for the next release was 3.2.  Will it
in fact be 3.3?  My testing system has moved to 3.3 with recent
updates (actually very soon after it went to 3.2).

Are 3.3 and 3.2 binary compatible, particularly for C++?  I know 3.2
was incompatible with previous versions for C++.  I've looked at the
gcc website, but I can't tell from there.

Finally, Colin Watson wrote in some previous threads that the
avoidance of update-alternatives for gcc was deliberate.  Could he, or
someone else, say a bit more about why?  I don't see why setting gcc
(and friend, I assume) up as a symlink is any different from using
alternatives (which is just two symlinks).  And does the gcc toolchain
know how to call the right version of related tools once you start it
(e.g., linker, assembler)?

Thanks.