On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > So saying that 2.95 requires 3.3 is not a stretch at all because it does > through dependancies. > > > 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. Which is no longer valid. The problem was that installing gcc-2.95 killed of /usr/bin/gcc where available from an older package and you need to install the gcc package to get that link again. That link no longer points to gcc-2.95 anymore so I'd say gcc-3.3 should depend on gcc and gcc-2.95 should not. Greetings Torsten
Attachment:
pgpvwfykPo847.pgp
Description: PGP signature