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

[Peter FELECAN]

Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> 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?

* History:
- gcc2:
  - until the end of 2004 it was maintained by Phil Brown and Markus Gyger
  - I took it up and provided the packages
  - at that time, some projects' preferred compiler set was that
	branch, e.g., MPlayer
- gcc3
  - same story as for gcc2
  - the last supported version for this branch, 3.4.6, is available
- gcc4
  - I maintained this branch since March 2005, the last version that I
    delivered was 4.0.2
  - after 2006, Mike Waters was the maintainer for this branch
* Prefix:
  the separate prefix was the rule from the beginning and it was
  enforced by the previous release manager; I proposed at the time an
  alternatives system but to no avail, BTW, this is why I implemented a
  specific alternative system for Emacs.
* Proposition for the future:
  Support only one branch, 4, but use alternatives for supporting
  different releases and make provision for a 5th branch; I think that
  I can release a branch 3 package using alternatives after it's
  implemented in the 4th.

-- 
Peter