Re: ‘gcc’ vs. ‘cc’

[John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:40:30AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
     Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org> skribis:
     
     > * such a symlink would have spared much frustration to Mark (see
     > earlier posts in this thread).
     
     Again, there have been few cases where this has caused problems (on the
     order of 10-20 packages out of 1000.)  I agree it’s better if we can
     avoid these problems altogether, but it’s not a real threat either.  ;-)
     
     What about doing this:
     
       1. Someone (Fede? :-)) opens a bug against GCC at
          <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> suggesting to install the ‘cc’
          link.
     
       2. In the next core-updates, we introduce (setenv "CC" "gcc"), as
          suggested by 宋文武, which is the least intrusive solution.  It
          will fix most uses I think, but not all (for instance, GLEW has
          “CC = cc” hard-coded in its Makefile, so it will still need
          patching; this is fine, IMO.)
     
     WDYT?
     

If we choose to do that, then for consistency we should also 
do (setenv "LEX" "flex") and (setenv "YACC" "bison")  Possibly a few others too.
     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]