Bug#101870: Update multiple version handling policies
On Friday 22 June 2001 06:08, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:32:56AM -0400, Warren Turkal wrote:
> > Severity: normal
> Policy proposals should be made with severity wishlist.
Sorry about that.
> I read your entire rant, and I still have no idea what you were
> trying to propose. We already recommend using alternatives when
> possible, and dpkg-divert only when absolutely necessary. We're NOT
> going to make the alternatives system mandatory -- we trust the
> judgement of our maintainers.
I think that anything that provides a common functionality as something
else should use the alternative system, especially when it claims to
provide the same thing (namely c-compiler).
The folks on debian-security have been discussing this same thing about
the pgp and gpg packages.
> If you have a problem with how the gcc packages are set up, I suggest
> you file a wishlist bug against the gcc packages. I don't think
> we're going to change it -- I think it's the way it is for good
> reason. But I'll leave that up to the judgement of the gcc
Will do. :)
> This applies to any sorts of packages where the alternatives system
> isn't in use but could be. You can file wishlist bugs. If the
> maintainers agree, then you get your wish, and otherwise, well,
> you've got the source... :-)
Where can I find info on building the software with apt?
> As an aside, I'll point out the handy environment variable CC, which
> you can set to whatever your little heart might desire. That should
> more than solve your immediate complaint.
I know about that. It just seems like this should be fixed in /etc.