Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)
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?
Reply to: