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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo