Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
Steve Lamb writes:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The
> > answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog:
> > 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!
so maybe you have found a bug (severity normal). File one, and maybe
it will get fixed.
> Well, when faced with the idiocy above where noone else seems to see the
> problem where when one version is asked for and a completely different version
> is installed I think anyone would rave. It isn't that hard a concept to
it's difficult to take you seriously if you begin a discussion in such
a tone. you should know that discussions heat up on debian-devel ...