From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Oct 25 22:54:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D6337B406 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11264 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2001 05:53:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 26 Oct 2001 05:53:57 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20011025190116.C4609@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:53:51 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: your mail Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Lyndon Nerenberg Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 26-Oct-01 David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 02:19:32PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: >> In fact, since Lyndon is just asking for a switch to do it (and not >> one that will be on by default) there should be no harm in adding such a >> switch. > > Other than a messier Makefile for what I see as a very rare corner case. Messy? Index: Makefile =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc/Makefile,v retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u -r1.24 Makefile --- Makefile 27 Mar 2001 14:58:37 -0000 1.24 +++ Makefile 26 Oct 2001 05:46:19 -0000 @@ -9,7 +9,10 @@ SRCS= gcc.c gccspec.c NOSHARED?=yes -LINKS= ${BINDIR}/cc ${BINDIR}/gcc +LINKS= ${BINDIR}/cc +.ifdef(GCC_NAMES) +LINKS+= ${BINDIR}/gcc +.endif MLINKS= gcc.1 cc.1 gcc.1 c++.1 gcc.1 g++.1 gcc.1 CC.1 CFLAGS+= -DDEFAULT_TARGET_VERSION=\"$(version)\" Doesn't look but so bad to me. They aren't in vendor code, so it's not like they have to be redone constantly for upgrades. It's just simple changes to the bmake Makefiles. I'll come up with the diff if you want. Granted, this doesn't fix the manpages which might be slightly harder. (Manpage would need to be installed as cc.1, and then you conditionalize the MLINKS line similary for the g*.1 links. Not too terribly difficult, but slightly more complicated than the above.) >> Remember, we aren't supposed to set policy here. :) The base system >> should not depend on the 'gcc' name, so having an _option_ to not use >> the g* names shouldn't be something to get upset about. > > We aren't setting policy. Like it or not, our system compiler is `gcc'. > Also like it or not `gcc' is the most prolific compiler in all of history. Err. Read those two sentences back to back. "We aren't setting policy. Like it or not..." Sounds like setting policy and users be damned to me. It seems more like you just don't like the idea since you wouldn't use it and thus have decided to take it as a personal issue. It's just hardlinks to a few binaries here, not the end of the world. > -- > -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message