Re: gcc upgrade

[Viktor Pavlenko <vp@example.com>]

>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:49:08 +0800, Jake Morrison <jacob.morrison@example.com> said:

    JM> Uvator,
    JM> You might want to keep egcs 1.1.2 around for compiling the kernel.
    JM> As I understand it, egcs 1.1.1 is the "official" compiler for
    JM> the kernel, though 2.95.2 is supposed to work for most people.

I removed it already (5 seconds after I got Scott's reply:) but I
suppose I can always install it again if something goes wrong.

Thanks.
Viktor


    JM> -Jake

    JM> "Scott M. Stone" wrote:
    >> 
    >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Viktor Pavlenko wrote:
    >> 
    >> > Hi all,
    >> >
    >> > just compiled and installed gcc-2.95.2, under /usr/local. It seems to
    >> > work.
    >> >
    >> > Now, I have egcs-1.1.2-30 and egcs-c++-1.1.2-30 rpm packages as well
    >> > as dynamic C++ libraries (which don't belong to any package) already
    >> > installed. It's a RH 6.2 system.
    >> >
    >> > I wonder if I would break anything now by unistalling the two egcs
    >> > packages? Is it enough to have /usr/local/bin in the PATH and
    >> > /usr/local/lib in ld path to switch compilers?
    >> >
    >> > I know that the best way to find out is to try, but here I feel that
    >> > to ask is better :)
    >> 
    >> theoretically the RPMs shouldn't own anything in /usr/local - check with
    >> "rpm -ql egcs | grep local".  As long as they don't, you can safely remove
    >> them without affecting the compiler that you installed under /usr/local.