Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:46:36 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> 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: <20011027004636.C94651@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20011026192933.B16134@hades.hell.gr>; from charon@labs.gr on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 07:29:34PM %2B0300 References: <200110250222.f9P2M30H071765@atg.aciworldwide.com> <20011026153313.C96876@daemon.ninth-circle.org> <20011026192933.B16134@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 07:29:34PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > 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. Please! No one has come close to suggesting 'cc' goes away as a command. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) 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?20011027004636.C94651>