Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> wrote:
> > gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low
> > * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on
> > xxx (>= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539,
> > #85570, #85578.
> > * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180).
> > You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so.
> Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does
> nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on
> gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person
> could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3!
You haven't listened.