gcc32 and kgcc
Michel Alexandre Salim
salimma1 at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Sep 28 11:20:01 UTC 2003
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 09:20, Carlos Rodrigues wrote:
[snip]
> My suggestion is a "kgcc" symlink. This "kgcc" would be sure to exist
> from now on, pointing to "gcc32" now but maybe pointing to "gcc" in the
> future when all gcc 3.3 issues in the kernel are eliminated. This means
> that now it would be provided in the gcc32's rpm but in the future it
> could change to gcc's (there could even be a "Provides: kgcc"). If this
> ends up in other distros (or as a requirement in the LSB) it would mean
> that modules could simply rely on the existence of "kgcc" and be free
> from this "CC=gcc32" stuff (at the very least the nvidia guys could just
> add a check for kgcc to fix things on Red Hat/Fedora and never bother to
> look at it again).
>
[snip]
Amen to that. I'm still on Severn1 - an annoying side-effect of
downloading with BitTorrent is that I have 99% of the first two ISOs
already downloaded but somehow the program is now busy downloading
mostly the third ISO :) Gaah.
There is a problem with your suggested approach though - as it stands,
if Red Hat suddenly discover a problem with the main system compiler (as
it did between Severn1 and Severn2), the main compiler RPM would still
erroneously be 'providing' kgcc. A virtual package 'kgcc' containing a
symlink to either gcc or (say) gcc32 would work fine; when there is a
problem building a kernel, just provide a new kgcc that links to a
different compiler binary and Requires: it.
I'm still a bit puzzled by the fact that the two latest Rawhide
kernel-source RPMs still have gcc as their compilers in their Makefiles.
RedHat certainly did not build kernels in that series using plain gcc,
since whenever I built a custom kernel I could not get pcmcia to work...
Regards,
Michel
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list