Re: Re: GCC problem, take two

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, T. Ribbrock wrote:

> Hm - that leads me to a question: If the sparc64 (or whatever the
> "default" gcc is called) gcc is broken on both sparc64 and sparc32
> (and failing to compile a file in this manner *is* broken in my eyes),
> then why isn't gcc-sparc32 the default compiler and gcc-sparc64 the
> add-on package?

It probably should be.  

> Also, having to use the "sparc32" wrapper on a 32bit box seems off to
> me - it should be the implicit default IMO.

Yeah, you don't need that on sparc32, but you do need to have gcc-sparc32 
installed.  I'm somewhat suprised it gets this far.

> > Maybe this ought to be part of the FAQ, since only fresh installs of
> > 1.0 (and successors, if there are any ;) will not show this behaviour.
> 
> At the very least the description of gcc-sparc32 needs to be changed,
> as the current description does not make it clear that it's a
> *required* package on both sparc32 and sparc64.

It's not required -- you don't have to install a compiler at all.

-- 
        Peter

"If Nietzsche was alive today, he'd be a sysadmin."
		-- Some friend of Ada's