[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95

Steve Lamb writes:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.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
> grasp.

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 ...


Reply to: