Re: Bug#42524: cpp: no /lib/cpp symbolic link
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 09:44:09PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>
> > romosan@caliban.lbl.gov writes:
> > > Package: cpp
> > > Version: 1:2.95-2
> > > Severity: important
> > >
> > > the latest version of cpp doesn't provide a symbolic link from
> > > /lib/cpp to /usr/bin/cpp. this breaks a number of programs (xdm
> > > being one of them).
> >
> > /lib/cpp depends on /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp. Does this
> > link still makes sense? Or should /lib/cpp a copy of
> > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp (not identical to /usr/bin/cpp).
> >
>
> doesn't /usr/bin/cpp end up calling
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp? anyway, i think /lib/cpp should
> be linked to /usr/bin/cpp (still trying to come up with a good reason
> why). can somebody explain the difference between /usr/bin/cpp and
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp?
I think you're right about the link, if it is to be there at all.
/usr/bin/cpp is a wrapper, which adds a number of options to the
private cpp binary (system macros, etc.) It should be the only
user-invoked version.
Neither is quite identical to gcc -E in syntax, though, just to make
life interesting.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: