On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 17:01, Steve Lamb wrote: > On 06 Aug 2003 16:48:18 -0500 > Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote: > > Let them go. IMO it's far better to install more than is necessary, but > > always get the desired functionality, than install less than is desired, > > and then have to spend 20 hours recompiling for the necessary > > functionality. > > ExxxxCUSE me? Care to explain how this has any relevance at all? > gcc-2.95 is going to somehow break without a SYMLINK to 3.3? It's going to > require a RECOMPILE because a SYMLINK TO A COMPLETELY UNRELATED VERSION ISN'T > PRESENT!? First, calm down. You found a bug in the kernel build system, which happens to be triggered by some otherwise innocuous behavior that Debian's GCC package has had for 2.5 years. Perhaps the Debian package is installing GCC 3.3 unneededly. This is a wishlist bug against the GCC package, then. Or perhaps you should've emailed the GCC maintainer before filing it, asking him if there was a good reason for this behavior. At this point, you're blowing up about what is an almost non-issue, with a trivial fix. It would be nice to get GCC 2.95 to stop depending on GCC 3.3; it might even be possible (I haven't looked at #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, #85570, or #85578, so it may or may not be). But even if it is, you've blown your chances of this thread ever achieving anything, I think. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part