Bug#184221: gcc-2.95: gcc-2.95 PACKAGE effectively depends on itself

["Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es>]

Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
Severity: normal


gcc 2.95.4's package information (I compiled it on potato) shows that it
requires gcc 2.95.3 or better in order to INSTALL, although obviously
one can bootstrap its COMPILATION from nearly any gcc.

HOWEVER, there is no 2.95.3 package that I could find on debian to which
I could upgrade my potato's 2.95.2.  Thus there is no way of getting to
where I want to be without being there already, as far as I can see
(modulo the existence of some dummy gcc package provided by gcc-2.95 of
which I am unaware, and that is quite possible).

I.e. you are at one fixpoint of a dependency problem, and I am at
another. If I currently do an apt-get -f install, it tells me:

   The following packages will be REMOVED:
     cpp-2.95 g++ g++-2.95 gcc-2.95 libdb2++-dev libdb2.6++-dev libsp1-dev
     libstdc++2.10-dbg libstdc++2.10-dev libstlport4.5-common libstlport4.5-dev
     protoize-2.95 

Hic.
  
And what I need is something dummyish that probably links /usr/bin/gcc to
gcc-2.95 and replaces gcc 2.95.2 as a package. Correct?

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Kernel Version: Linux betty.it.uc3m.es 2.4.20-SMP-XFS #15 SMP Thu Jan 9 00:58:05 CET 2003 i686 unknown

Versions of the packages gcc-2.95 depends on:
ii  binutils       2.12.90.0.1-4  The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti
ii  cpp-2.95       2.95.4-11woody The GNU C preprocessor.
ii  gcc            2.95.2-13.1    The GNU C compiler.
ii  libc6          2.1.3-24       GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone


Feel free to dismiss this bug report. It is not completely
straightforward to compile woody packages on potato, and as I recall
I could not compile objc and decided not to compile g77 and pascal and
java, and the resulting complaints from the make showed me that there
were bits of ad-hoc patchery in the debian rules so that defining the
languages wanted still left the debian/rules* expecting the langauges I
hadn't compiled.  To say nothing of a missing runtest script ..  well, I
digress.

Anyway, it's quite possible I erred and there is a fake gcc package
that will "replace" my gcc 2.95.2 now that I have gcc-2.95.4 in place.
But I don't have it. Let me know ..

Peter