Re: testing consistency

[Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com>]

	  > Install gcc under /usr on linux has been done for years now.
	I assume because of various hacks you've been distributing to the
	linux community, or has there been something in the standard gcc
	releases to do this?

No, it has been a standard part of gcc for quite a while.

	gcc has always installed itself into /usr/local by default and
	that's the behavior the vast majority of users expect.

Except under linux, where it installs by default into /usr.

	Having gcc install itself into /usr seems absolutely and horribly
	wrong to me.  I won't install that patch.

Consider what happens if HP sends you a compiler upgrade for your HP machine.
Does it go into /usr/local?  No.  It goes in /usr.  gcc plays the same role
for Linux.  If we release an official upgraded version of gcc for Linux, then
it should go in /usr by default.

There are two considerations here.  Developers playing with gcc snapshots,
and end users trying to upgrade their compiler to the new version.  A
developer would not want to install into /usr, because a snapshot bug might
break your system.  On the other hand, an end user must install into /usr,
otherwise, they haven't actually upgraded the compiler on their system.

Since these are contrary goals, we must choose which one is not the default.
It is generally preferable to make things harder for the developer, since
they are expected to be able to deal with any problems.  Also, we don't want
to tell Linux people that they need to apply patches before they can install
gcc correctly.  Hence, installs into /usr should be the default.

This particular issue incidentally has been debated before among the gcc2
developers.  I don't see any particular need to reopen the issue.

Jim