Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: RFC: Policy 10.1 and appropriateness of package conflicts"): > wou...@celtic:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/gcc > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 jun 6 07:23 /usr/bin/gcc -> gcc-4.4 > wou...@celtic:~$ dpkg -S /usr/bin/gcc > gcc: /usr/bin/gcc > wou...@celtic:~$ dpkg -S /usr/bin/gcc-4.1 > gcc-4.1: /usr/bin/gcc-4.1 > > How is that any different?
The name "gcc" isn't namespace pollution. The package which provides the name gcc is also a stably-named metapackage so has another reason for existing. I don't think this is the case with fsl. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/19561.4906.686680.986...@chiark.greenend.org.uk