Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:05:57 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: Giorgos Keramidas <charon@labs.gr> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl>, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <200110262306.f9QN6t869229@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:29:34 %2B0300." <20011026192933.B16134@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20011026192933.B16134@hades.hell.gr>, Giorgos Keramidas writes: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 03:33:13PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > > >Based on this, what do you think about adding a NO_GNU_COMPLER_CMD_LINKS > > >macro to make.conf? If set, if would prevent the linking of cc -> > > >gcc and c++ -> g++, freeing up /usr/local/bin/g* for the site to > > >decide? (And I'm not tied to that horribly long macro name, either.) > > > > I would sooner prefer the other way around. Have gcc and g++ and have a > > knob to not create the gcc -> cc symlink. :) > > No please. > > I don't mind having both cc and gcc on my disks, but `cc' is the name > of the system compiler. Since our system compiler is gcc, I'd expect > both links to exist. Having a compiled named gcc is a GNU'ism that > has stuck with us now, but having a compiler called cc is something > that is part of what I've learned to call Unix. I agree. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD Ministry of Management Services Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110262306.f9QN6t869229>