Your message dated Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:47:29 -0500 (EST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Mar 2002 19:10:39 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 01 13:10:39 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.20]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16gsQQ-0003c8-00; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:10:39 -0600
Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de
by mailout08.sul.t-online.com with smtp
id 16gp2r-0000UG-0B; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:34:05 +0100
Received: from marvin.xmldesign.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by
fmrl01.sul.t-online.com
with esmtp id 16gp2l-0YhjhQC; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:33:59 +0100
Received: by marvin.xmldesign.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 40BF9936C6; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:33:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.44
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:33:19 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-1
Severity: normal
Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
/usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
Greetings,
erich
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux marvin.xmldesign.de 2.4.18-pre9 #1 Die Feb 12 02:47:09 CET 2002
i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Versions of packages gcc-3.0 depends on:
ii binutils 2.11.93.0.2-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpp-3.0 1:3.0.4-1 The GNU C preprocessor.
ii gcc-3.0-base 1:3.0.4-1 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.2.5-3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.0.4-1 GCC support library.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 136351-done) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Mar 2002 21:47:31 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 01 15:47:31 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dsl092-073-086.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (spawn.hockeyfiend.com)
[66.92.73.86] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16gusF-0004SC-00; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:47:31 -0600
Received: from chris (helo=localhost)
by spawn.hockeyfiend.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
id 16gusD-0002T8-00; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:47:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:47:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Christopher C. Chimelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Debian GCC maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: "Christopher C. Chimelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
>
> /usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
The short answer is no, gcc is just package built from gcc-defaults that
points to the preferred compiler on your architecture (most likely
gcc-2.95). There are good reasons why alternatives weren't used for gcc
packages, trust us :-)
If you wish to switch your system over to use
gcc-3.0 by default, you may locally modify and rebuild the gcc-defaults
source package so that it sets up the links for you. A word of warning,
though, if there are any other users on your system that expect the
compiler to behave as 2.95.x has done in the past, swapping this
system-wide may not be a good idea. If you're just looking to test gcc
3.0.x with your own code, it's usually preferred to alter your environment
variables (ie. CC=gcc-3.0) or makefiles to accomplish this.
Side-note to Matthias:
Should we do a debconf item for this? I'm getting tired of seeing this
question pop up at least once every two weeks for months now...and I'm
sure I'm not alone :-)
C
