On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:51:18AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 09:21:54AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > Source package gcc-defaults, binary-arch packages cpp, gcc, g++ and maybe > > > g77, gcj and gpc. For gcc: gcc is a symlink to gcc-x.yz and the > > > package provides the alternative cc (pointing to gcc). Will this work? > > > What about packages like colorgcc? > > > > Sounds right to me! > > hmm, Is it ok to name these packages cpp, gcc, ... or should it be > something like cpp-default, gcc-default, which > conflicts/replaces/provides cpp/gcc? The version number of these > packages would be a bit misleading. Does it matter?
I'd say, call them gcc, cpp, etc. Does anything have a versioned dependency/build dependency on gcc? If so, we'll need to choose the versions with care - I'd be tempted just to call them version four or so :) Dan /--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
