stupid_idiot
Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: Oct. 2006 |
|
Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:41 |
|
Quote | If you're looking at the kernel, it should also be 2.95
Maybe a script can be included in the package to set up those environmental variables? | Thanks -- I missed thinking about gcc-2.95 entirely. If I'm not wrong, the common wisdom is that it is safest to use gcc-2.95 to compile modules for a kernel compiled with gcc-2.95. If so, does anyone know how/why gcc-2.95 is safer than gcc-3.3 in this case, assuming that both compilers are able to compile the module cleanly?
In any case, I think we should be able to mix gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.3 easily. e.g. cpp-2.95:Code Sample | make install [gcc-2.95] cd /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin mv cpp cpp-2.95 | cpp-3.3:Code Sample | make install [gcc-3.3] cd /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin mv cpp cpp-3.3 | gcc:Code Sample | cd /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin ln -s i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-2.95 gcc-2.95 ln -s i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-3.3.5 gcc-3.3 |
After loading the extension, user can do the following:Code Sample | export PATH=/opt/compile-3.3.5/bin:$PATH | andCode Sample | ln -s /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin/cpp-2.95 /opt/bin/cpp ln -s /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin/gcc-2.95 /opt/bin/gcc | orCode Sample | ln -s /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin/cpp-3.3 /opt/bin/cpp ln -s /opt/compile-3.3.5/bin/gcc-3.3 /opt/bin/gcc |
Since these commands are very simple, I think we probably don't need to have a script (for setting certain environment variables automatically) after all.
Also, I strongly suggest that we let the user add '/opt/compile-3.3.5/bin' to $PATH, rather than installing symlinks in '/opt/bin/' with user.tar.gz. Since there is a large number of binaries in '/opt/compile-3.3.5/bin/', this will avoid cluttering up '/opt/bin/' unnecessarily, and will probably also make Juanito's life easier.
What does everyone think? Thanks!
|