On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 06:18:33AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > > > 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?
>
> Default compilers are from the 2.95.3 package.
>
> > With alternatives?
>
> No alternatives are used. That was my understanding of hardcoding.
>
> > Are the alternative priorities set on a per arch basis?
>
> That was my intention to have.
>
> 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.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
