Hi Peter, I'd like to ask about the prefix for gcc. Current user experience with gcc looks more or less like this[1]:
pkgutil -i gcc (fails) pkgutil -a gcc ah. pkgutil -i gcc4core gcc test.c gcc: command not found wtf? Didn't I just install gcc? (bangs head against desk) find /opt/csw -name gcc (gets coffee) /opt/csw/gcc4/bin/gcc is found (raises eyebrows) Why would you do that? (shrugs and grumbles) The discussion about why build gcc in a separate prefix predates me, so perhaps you remember why we do it this way. I tend to think of using separate prefixes as of a sloppy way to support multiple versions of a piece of software. Alternatively, as of an inability to deprecate old versions, or as of poor understanding how shared libraries work. Do you recall the reasons to compile gcc into a different prefix, and do you think these reasons still apply today? Maciej [1] http://serverfault.com/questions/229606/how-to-install-gnu-build-tools-from-blastwave _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
