On 2001.01.04 Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 07:13:58PM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Silly question:
> > >
> > > can't we just hardwire `kgcc' into the build system and be done
> > > with all this kwhich stuff? It's just a symlink....
> >
> > And break compilation on all non RedHat 7, non connectiva systems ?
> > Would you volunteer to handle the support load on l-k that would cause?
>
> Hardcoding kgcc is definitely not an option.
>
In Mdk 7.2+ there is something called 'alternatives' that seems to be
inherited-copied from Debian. I read aboce that RH and Conectiva have it.
It allows
you to have some gcc-2.95, gcc-2.96, and select a default gcc that
points to the one desired. It has defaults and priorities.
Same thing could be done with 'kgcc': kernel needs something called
kgcc, its up to you to set it up.
In my case (mdk), kgcc is a binary from egcs-1.1.2. If I want to try
building a kernel with gcc-2.96, I should uninstall egcs to let
kernel miss kgcc and find gcc, or tweak kernel Makefiles.
(OT: I still dont understand why egcs is still named egcs instead
of gcc-2.91)
-- J.A. Magallon $> cd pub mailto:jamagallon@able.es $> more beerLinux werewolf 2.2.19-pre6 #1 SMP Wed Jan 3 21:28:10 CET 2001 i686
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 07 2001 - 21:00:19 EST