> > 'preferred' by whom? I think that this should be controlled by > > sysadmin. The whole 'alternatives' system for making easy > > for sysadmin to change defaults. Why gcc is exception? > > ld and as are exceptions as well. > > use the system compiler to build libfoo, change the system compiler to > gcc-3.0, recompile libfoo (which now depends on libgcc1), upload this > package, you'll get the mess.
I agree with Matthias on this one. The port maintainers for Debian are determining which compiler is best for which arch. If there's a problem with that selection on your chosen platform, it may be best to take it up with them if you disagree (except i386...posting to debian-user or debian-devel may be more appropriate). I've got five archs in my house and have always found the chosen compilers to be the best for each (being a fellow toolchain maintainer, I do quite a bit of testing). To use alternatives for gcc et.al would invite disaster from a Debian developer standpoint. > > But if I want to do that on system level? > > use dpkg-divert I have found that it's just as easy to compile a custom, local set of gcc-defaults packages to suit my needs. I switch compilers quite a bit for testing purposes and keep a set of gcc-defaults packages around to do just that. C
