[csw-maintainers] Reasons for gcc to have a separate prefix

[Maciej Bliziński]

Hi Peter,

I'd like to ask about the prefix for gcc.  Current user experience
with gcc looks more or less like this[1]:

pkgutil -i gcc
(fails)
pkgutil -a gcc
ah.
pkgutil -i gcc4core
gcc test.c
gcc: command not found
wtf? Didn't I just install gcc?
(bangs head against desk)
find /opt/csw -name gcc
(gets coffee)
/opt/csw/gcc4/bin/gcc is found
(raises eyebrows) Why would you do that?
(shrugs and grumbles)

The discussion about why build gcc in a separate prefix predates me,
so perhaps you remember why we do it this way. I tend to think of
using separate prefixes as of a sloppy way to support multiple
versions of a piece of software.  Alternatively, as of an inability to
deprecate old versions, or as of poor understanding how shared
libraries work.

Do you recall the reasons to compile gcc into a different prefix, and
do you think these reasons still apply today?

Maciej

[1] http://serverfault.com/questions/229606/how-to-install-gnu-build-tools-from-blastwave