Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:51:18AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 09:21:54AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>  > > Source package gcc-defaults, binary-arch packages cpp, gcc, g++ and maybe
>  > > g77, gcj and gpc. For gcc: gcc is a symlink to gcc-x.yz and the
>  > > package provides the alternative cc (pointing to gcc). Will this work?
>  > > What about packages like colorgcc?
>  > 
>  > Sounds right to me!
> 
> hmm, Is it ok to name these packages cpp, gcc, ... or should it be
> something like cpp-default, gcc-default, which
> conflicts/replaces/provides cpp/gcc? The version number of these
> packages would be a bit misleading. Does it matter?

I'd say, call them gcc, cpp, etc.  Does anything have a versioned
dependency/build dependency on gcc?  If so, we'll need to choose the
versions with care - I'd be tempted just to call them version four or
so :)

Dan

/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/