Steve Lamb writes: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400 > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The > > answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog: > > > gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low > > > * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on > > xxx (>= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539, > > #85570, #85578. > > * Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180). > > > You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so. > > Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does > nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on > gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person > could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3!
so maybe you have found a bug (severity normal). File one, and maybe it will get fixed. > Well, when faced with the idiocy above where noone else seems to see the > problem where when one version is asked for and a completely different version > is installed I think anyone would rave. It isn't that hard a concept to > grasp. it's difficult to take you seriously if you begin a discussion in such a tone. you should know that discussions heat up on debian-devel ... Matthias