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 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
