Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]> writes:
> 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?
* History:
- gcc2:
- until the end of 2004 it was maintained by Phil Brown and Markus Gyger
- I took it up and provided the packages
- at that time, some projects' preferred compiler set was that
branch, e.g., MPlayer
- gcc3
- same story as for gcc2
- the last supported version for this branch, 3.4.6, is available
- gcc4
- I maintained this branch since March 2005, the last version that I
delivered was 4.0.2
- after 2006, Mike Waters was the maintainer for this branch
* Prefix:
the separate prefix was the rule from the beginning and it was
enforced by the previous release manager; I proposed at the time an
alternatives system but to no avail, BTW, this is why I implemented a
specific alternative system for Emacs.
* Proposition for the future:
Support only one branch, 4, but use alternatives for supporting
different releases and make provision for a 5th branch; I think that
I can release a branch 3 package using alternatives after it's
implemented in the 4th.
--
Peter
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
