Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-02 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2011-02-02 03:01 +0100, Andrew Reid wrote: On Tuesday 01 February 2011 20:11:31 Joe Riel wrote: Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able to configure whether /usr/bin/gcc is linked to gcc-4.3, gcc-4.4, etc. Of course I can

Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-02 Thread deloptes
Joe Riel wrote: update-alternatives --install as part of their postinstall routine. is not that bad idea -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-02 Thread Joe Riel
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:18:00 +0100 Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote: On 2011-02-02 03:01 +0100, Andrew Reid wrote: On Tuesday 01 February 2011 20:11:31 Joe Riel wrote: Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able

alternatives for gcc

2011-02-01 Thread Joe Riel
Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able to configure whether /usr/bin/gcc is linked to gcc-4.3, gcc-4.4, etc. Of course I can just set the link manually (which I do), but ... -- Joe Riel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian

Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-01 Thread Andrew Reid
On Tuesday 01 February 2011 20:11:31 Joe Riel wrote: Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able to configure whether /usr/bin/gcc is linked to gcc-4.3, gcc-4.4, etc. Of course I can just set the link manually (which I do

Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-01 Thread deloptes
Joe Riel wrote: Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able to configure whether /usr/bin/gcc is linked to gcc-4.3, gcc-4.4, etc. Of course I can just set the link manually (which I do), but ... every normal automake or cmake

Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-01 Thread Joe Riel
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:01:13 -0500 Andrew Reid rei...@bellatlantic.net wrote: On Tuesday 01 February 2011 20:11:31 Joe Riel wrote: Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able to configure whether /usr/bin/gcc is linked to gcc

Re: alternatives for gcc

2011-02-01 Thread Joe Riel
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:31:30 +0100 deloptes delop...@yahoo.com wrote: Joe Riel wrote: Why are there no alternatives, configurable with update-alternatives, for gcc? Seems like I should be able to configure whether /usr/bin/gcc is linked to gcc-4.3, gcc-4.4, etc. Of course I can just

Re: update-alternatives and gcc

2003-06-09 Thread Colin Watson
that the avoidance of update-alternatives for gcc was deliberate. Could he, or someone else, say a bit more about why? I don't see why setting gcc (and friend, I assume) up as a symlink is any different from using alternatives (which is just two symlinks). Well, I'm not a toolchain guru by any means

Re: update-alternatives and gcc

2003-06-08 Thread Ross Boylan
compatible, particularly for C++? I know 3.2 was incompatible with previous versions for C++. I've looked at the gcc website, but I can't tell from there. Finally, Colin Watson wrote in some previous threads that the avoidance of update-alternatives for gcc was deliberate. Could he, or someone else