2011/8/26 Ben Walton <[email protected]>: > Excerpts from Maciej Bliziński's message of Thu Aug 25 07:23:26 -0400 2011: > > Hi Maciej, > >> Do you recall the reasons to compile gcc into a different prefix, >> and do you think these reasons still apply today? > > I'd definitely love to see gcc move into /opt/csw. Alternatives > should make this possible. A symlink from /opt/csw/gcc4 -> /opt/csw > should be provided if such a move is ever attempted though so that > things with the path coded in continue working.
I've got now a working set of packages with binaries in /opt/csw and alternatives, just the way Peter Felecan has suggested. Currently, there's no /opt/csw/gcc4 compatibility layer. It's time to tackle this issue. I'm afraid that we cannot create the /opt/csw/gcc4 → /opt/csw symlink. Imagine a scenario where someone puts a file under /opt/csw/gcc4 - pkgrm will not remove this directory. I'm not sure what happens when you try to install a symlink over a path which is already a directory, but I'm fairly certain that you won't make pkgadd happy that way. We'd better provide symlinks for individual files. For example: /opt/csw/gcc4/bin/gcc → ../../bin/gcc-4.6 All other links accordingly. Does that look good? Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
