Hallo Daniel, Am Samstag, 1. November 2003 um 15:43 schriebst du:
> On 2003-11-01T12:53+0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > ) Somoehow setup.exe installed the gcc source package gcc-core for me, > ) however I only wanted to install the binaries and it was also not > ) listed in the Up-To-Date section after I tried to uninstall the source > ) again. What I did now was to explicit install gcc-core (the source > ) package) and then removed it with setup.exe again. > ) > ) I cannot say how it happened, there is no other package listed which > ) requires gcc-core. > Well, what was the reasoning for having a separate gcc-core package again? > By default, both source and binary would be under the same name, and a knob > in setup would allow the user to install either one. I wanted to have both, binary and source with the name gcc-core, but then I struggled when trying to create an empty bz2 archive to get the previous gcc package uninstalled (I figured now how to do it). > Without consulting the source (WCTS?) I'd guess it might be because there is > no gcc-core binary package. If there is no other reason for the split, it > might be best to remove gcc's external-source, and rename gcc-core-*-src to > gcc-src. The other way around, rename the binary package. `gcc-core' is the name used by the GCC source distribution to make clear that you get just the core whereas the full package is named gcc-*. I distribute basically the same packages as they do and the names should also be the same. I'll do the renaming the next release then. Gerrit -- =^..^=
