Re: gcc-2.6.3

[Waldi Ravens <waldi@moacs.indiv.nl.net>]

Christian Lynbech wrote:

> I would like to promote letting GCC's configure script decide on the
> internal organization of the GCC directory, i.e. to select a single
> prefix, and let configure do its thing from that.

It already does (--prefix=XXX). If you use gcc as the sytem C-compiler
the most appropriate prefix is /usr, otherwise /usr/local.
 
>  Note that we are not
> just talking about binaries, but also libraries and (possibly) include
> files, perhaps the nbinary utilities and support for GNU's own
> version/architecture separation scheme.

The headers and libraries are not part of the gcc package. At least
the gcc I'm using does not include a standard library, it uses the
system's standard library (AKA mintlib). The headers are off course
shared between gcc and any other C-compilers; in my case gcc acts as
the system's C-compiler (/usr/bin/cc), while the others are located
on the /usr/local filesystem, but all three are using the same sets
of headers in /usr/include and /usr/local/include.

So we are talking about the gcc specific files (cpp, cc1 and other
binaries (but not including as, ld & co.), and also the specs file
and libgcc.a) exclusively.

> I have always liked the idea of being able to identify the
> installation of a particular program with a single node in the
> directory tree and distributing binaries and libraries and include
> files all over the place does not really fit into that.

The libraries, bin-utils, assembler and gcc are by no means one particular
program or package. Also, other compilers (not even limited to C-compilers)
may use the same assembler, linker, headers, library images or whatever.

> /usr/gnu is just one suggestion, others are possible, the main idea is
> that it should be different from standard directories such as /usr/lib
> or /usr/local/lib.

I'm really puzzled why you don't want to use standard locations. What
about configure scripts (for example elm) that search for the libraries
in standard locations to find out which functions are supported by your
system? Sure, you can add your non-standard paths, but I'd rather prefer
a sytem where I can type `configure; make', sit back and enjoy. :-)


Waldi