On Tue, 15 May 2001 13:02:37 +1000 Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 09:15:22PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote: > > I'm a little confused at this point. > > ls -l /etc/alternatives/c++ > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Apr 28 16:59 > > /etc/alternatives/c++ -> /usr/bin/g++ > > ls -l /usr/bin/g++ > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Apr 28 16:59 /usr/bin/g++ -> > > g++-2.95 > > > > If this is correct so far, so good. > > nope, it wasn't correct - at least on my system. > > with the help of Steve Robbins, i discovered that i had an old version > of /usr/bin/c++ (2.95.2) hanging around. > > this wasn't a symlink to /etc/alternatives, it was a real file. > > # ls -l /usr/bin/c++ > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 69456 Oct 25 1999 /usr/bin/c++ > > > so, turns out it was a false alarm...or at least, it was only a problem on > my system. > > > i've checked a few of my other debian systems and they have the correct > symlinks...but now i'll have to check them all (or at least, all of > the older ones built prior to Oct 1999) in case this was caused by a > long-ago buggy upgrade. The answer to that is Yes, as I have the same problem. Thanks for the info, I'm fixing it now. See my previous message on this subject for my suggestion of putting some code in g++'s preinst to auto-fix this. Regards, Alex.
Attachment:
pgpGF4gp4NC6X.pgp
Description: PGP signature