On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200
Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> wrote:
> So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first
place! Is that too much to ask? Apparently! Lemme put it this way: In no
other package that I am aware of does installing an older version require
installing a NEWER version to work!
> You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be
> of no consequence whatsoever.
And you don't see a problem with that?
"Yeah, so what that you asked for exim 3, bind 8, python2.2 and
kernel-image-2.4.20. You got them? What do you care that exim4, bind9,
Python2.3 and kernel-image-2.4.21 were installed!?" Uh, because I didn't ask
for them to be installed?
> If gcc-2.95 hadn't pulled in gcc which pulled in gcc-3.3, you'd've got _no_
> gcc. That strikes me as being singularly unhelpful.
Ok... why? Imagine that, gcc-2.95 never worked in the past because it
needed 3.3 to even be installed?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
| -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp7rYhM6ROhL.pgp
Description: PGP signature