testing consistency

[Peter Seebach]

I have, for many years now, used almost nothing but systems where gcc has been
"the compiler".  On Amiga Unix, BSD/OS, NetBSD, Lynx/OS, the NeXT, and
Linux, gcc has been "the compiler" for quite some time.

I would be *very* upset if I downloaded another version, compiled it,
and found that it installed by default into /usr.

I mean, *very* upset.  It would make me very distrustful.

I had never, before this, even *considered* the possibility that something
I grab separately from my OS would try to install itself in the normal /usr;
/usr is for *unified distributions*.  I do not want anything going in /usr
unless that exact version, as built, is *exactly* the one the rest of /usr
is tested with.

I would, in any event, never want a compiler or other "base" tool to
overwrite "the system default", unless I went out of my way to tell it to.

When I build a new version of a compiler, I expect it to keep itself nicely
isolated from "the system" unless explicitly told to do otherwise; this
prevents all manner of unfortunate mishaps.

Saying "gcc is the system compiler" is deeply misleading.  Bugs creep in and
out.  Code may, however wrong this is, *depend* on a given set of bugs, or
a given set of implementation decisions.  gcc is not always the same as, or
even compatible with, gcc.  I think it's great to be *able* to replace the
system compiler with a more current version of gcc, but I think it is very
bad for that to be the default behavior.

My vote, as a regular user of several systems where gcc is "the compiler",
would be very strongly that gcc should continue to, by default, install into
/usr/local, and deciding that it should be installed into /usr should remain
an act of explicit volition, either by the user running configure, or the
person preparing a package for distribution.

Your milage may vary.  Some compilers not for use with some programs.  Your
sysadmin helps you put it together.

-s