On 2011-12-30 13:08:24 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Adam Borowski wrote: > > I see no reason why it couldn't simply be shipped in the package > > outright. It's not like it invades anyone's namespace, etc. It > > would be also consistent with all other gcc packages, all having > > the executable named the same as the package. At least after > > having tested my stuff with gcc-4.2 in the past, I didn't even > > suspect gcc-snapshot could be any different until ./configure > > failed :p > > I suspect it's to save people from the pain of using the snapshot to > build Debian packages on autobuilders when wanting to use a new > feature or after running into a bug with one of the released gcc > versions.
I use gcc-snapshot as a simple end user of GCC, in order to do some portability tests of my programs (not directly related to Debian) with the latest GCC features, in particular. So, providing /usr/bin/gcc-snapshot would be natural. Do you mean that you don't want gcc-snapshot to be in /usr/bin because this would yield problems on autobuilders? But wouldn't be the autobuilders' fault? -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111230215536.gf5...@xvii.vinc17.org