From: jon@robots.ox.ac.uk (Jon Tombs) Subject: Re: Distribution sugestion for gcc. Date: 5 Sep 1992 20:00:41 GMT
In article <1992Sep05.170344.14838@donau.et.tudelft.nl> wolff@hal.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff) writes:
>I have been thinking about the method gcc is being distributed.
>(partly because I had problems myself, and I seem to be not the only
>one)
>
>Anyway, how about creating a tar file with EVERYTHING in it. This could
>be done in two ways:
>1) all the files that are in there now + an install script.
>2) ALL that gcc needs. Even the links etc that the install script makes.
>
>[...]
>Ok. Suggestions? pro's con's?
I suggest you get the compiler via the mcc-interim release.
I would also hope the next gcc is not tied to a particular kernel, why did
linus move his types.h to be <linux/types.h> when <sys/types.h> now just
includes it? This means if a future kernel patch changes anything, the whole
of libc might then be incompatable. I'm not saying that the kernel and libc
should have separate include files, but until changes slow down then they
should stay stand alone releases.
I lost my /usr/src partition with a disk corruption, and couldn't compile
anything (even a helloworld.c program) until I replaced the kernel code.
Now I don't have time to work out if everything is correct as I haven't run
install.2.x on the replaced kernel code.