On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200 Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first place! Is that too much to ask? Apparently! Lemme put it this way: In no other package that I am aware of does installing an older version require installing a NEWER version to work! > You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be > of no consequence whatsoever. And you don't see a problem with that? "Yeah, so what that you asked for exim 3, bind 8, python2.2 and kernel-image-2.4.20. You got them? What do you care that exim4, bind9, Python2.3 and kernel-image-2.4.21 were installed!?" Uh, because I didn't ask for them to be installed? > If gcc-2.95 hadn't pulled in gcc which pulled in gcc-3.3, you'd've got _no_ > gcc. That strikes me as being singularly unhelpful. Ok... why? Imagine that, gcc-2.95 never worked in the past because it needed 3.3 to even be installed? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. | -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
pgpczxKBFwI0T.pgp
Description: PGP signature