Re: [PATCH 1/6] gcc: Use alternatives for the *-symlinks packages.

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 11/12/13, 8:24 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
>> The various gcc related symlinks should be provided as alternatives instead
>> of hard coded symlinks.  This will permit multiple toolchains on a system.
>>
>> Multiple toolchains could come from multilib configurations or alternative
>> open source or commerical sources.
>>
>> Note, gccbug was skipped since it doesn't seem to be generated anymore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
>
> Wouldn't be better to squash patches 1 and 2 so it makes a real 'logic
> change'? You add code to remove in patch 2, I think the end patch
> would be easier to review, no?
>

It was done this way to match how binutils was implemented.  These are actually 
two logically separate patches.  The first switches from hard coded symlinks to 
using update-alternatives.  The second patch says that a separate -symlinks 
package is no longer needed.

See binutils:

1395aefcaeac94dd0e6ed3a718b7e58dd43b355e
24093e26f246f222c385dc37a2f8cf8b0f183175

(The second of the patches can be reverted -- if ever needed -- and the update 
alternatives functionality will still work properly.)

--Mark