On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM, George Vasick <George.Vasick at sun.com>
wrote:
> OK, let me make sure I understand correctly.
>
> In OpensSolaris 2009.06, we should have released gcc43 as opposed to gcc432.
My understanding is that that is the norm for the extended the GCC
community - that the "trailing .2" is simply a serial number that
indicates the patch level within a stable release version. If so,
then we erred in exposing the 3-digit versioning scheme...
> ?The user could use something like pkginfo or gcc -v to determine that it
> was actually version 4.3.2.
More to the point, the package repo could have all of the following
package versions:
gcc 4.3 patchlevel 2 - used in the ON build environment
gcc 4.3 patchlevel 3 - released Oct 31, 2009
gcc 4.3 patchlevel 4 - released Nov 1, 2009 :-)
and maybe even a "virtual" package that points to one of the above:
gcc 4.3 - latest release
Hopefully, this would let you "subscribe" to the virtual package and
get auto-updates as the IPS repo gets updated; if you instead
installed a specific version.patchlevel, you would not get auto
updated to new version.patchlevels...
> There would be no coexistence of
> gcc432 and gcc433. ?However, when we release gcc44, coexistence should be
> allowed.
That seems reasonable to me. If you need 4.3.2, install it - and only
it. Or, use the "install in my home directory" options of ips to
install a particular version just for yourself or your build
environment...
> Then there is a separate issue of the default commands gcc, g++, c++, and
> gfortran in /usr/bin. ?Should they remain at 343 as in 2009.06 or should
> they be bumped up the to latest version of gcc?
The links should be to 4.3 - independent of any patch level - since
(as above) you would not be setting things up to handle multiple
instantiations at the patch level...
> The argument for leaving
> them at 343 is that 343 is the build compiler for OpenSolaris source builds.
As long as one can install 4.3.2 (or is it 343 - I'm thoroughly
confused now, especially since I routinely fat-finger the version
sequences myself :-) from IPS, that should be sufficient. Bending
over backwards to support co-installs at the patch level hardly seems
necessary...
-John
