<<On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:57:36 -0800, "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> *IF* I understand what you are trying to say, here is my answer: if I
> were to start fresh with with bringing in the first C compiler into
> FreeBSD, it would not have a 'gcc' name to it -- only 'cc'.
Indeed, that was precisely how it used to be. Then....
----------------------------
revision 1.6
date: 1994/11/01 20:51:29; author: jkh; state: Exp; lines: +3 -1
Add LINKS to get gcc back.
----------------------------
...we decided that too many things were made unhappy when gcc was not
available under its usual name. Not because it was the Right Thing,
but because we're not in this to make life hard for developers and
users. The parallel log entry for c++/Makefile bears that out:
----------------------------
revision 1.4
date: 1994/11/01 21:28:00; author: jkh; state: Exp; lines: +2 -1
Link g++ -> c++, like I did with gcc -> cc. This is evil, but it's
now at least orthogonal evil.
----------------------------
Note that the change to cc/Makefile undid a previous change:
----------------------------
revision 1.3
date: 1994/08/23 17:18:58; author: paul; state: Exp; lines: +0 -6
Fixed up everything so that the version of gcc that we install from the
FreeBSD system sources installs itself as the standard cc and c++. I've
fixed c++ to call cc instead of gcc and removed all the symlinks
that get created to g** version of the binaries. This means that
you can install a second version of gcc that does use the g prefix
alongside the "system" version of gcc. The only conflict is libgcc
[...]
So at one time we followed the direction you wish.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
