On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 09:44:09PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Package: cpp > > > Version: 1:2.95-2 > > > Severity: important > > > > > > the latest version of cpp doesn't provide a symbolic link from > > > /lib/cpp to /usr/bin/cpp. this breaks a number of programs (xdm > > > being one of them). > > > > /lib/cpp depends on /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp. Does this > > link still makes sense? Or should /lib/cpp a copy of > > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp (not identical to /usr/bin/cpp). > > > > doesn't /usr/bin/cpp end up calling > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp? anyway, i think /lib/cpp should > be linked to /usr/bin/cpp (still trying to come up with a good reason > why). can somebody explain the difference between /usr/bin/cpp and > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95/cpp?
I think you're right about the link, if it is to be there at all. /usr/bin/cpp is a wrapper, which adds a number of options to the private cpp binary (system macros, etc.) It should be the only user-invoked version. Neither is quite identical to gcc -E in syntax, though, just to make life interesting. Dan /--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
