Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:00:58 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But in > > 4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile all > > packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc). > > I think we have two goals here: > - Make the developers use gcc for building C code in packages. [*] > [*] The libc6 __register_frame_info situation clearly shows what horrors can > result from using the wrong compiler (in this case: /usr/local/bin). > IMO, we should be looking for a more complete specification of the > environment in which packages are built, and incorporate that in a tool > like "build". Treating all architectures as ports, and using a dedicated > set of build systems (with a standard environment setting) would be ideal > for this, but that's not attainable yet.
I think that's a bogus argument; a broken gcc in /usr/local/bin would cause the same problem. It would perhaps be best to plan for the future: once kernel 2.2 is released, there's no reason why a system couldn't be exclusively egcs (i.e., no gcc). Why create an artificial dependency on gcc? Mike Stone
