Bug#184221: gcc-2.95: gcc-2.95 PACKAGE effectively depends on itself
hmm, I don't seem to understand thw whole problem, but anyway: you can
get 2.95.3 packages for potato at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc-2.95-potato/
Untested, use it at your own risk.
Peter T. Breuer writes:
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: