Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?

Package: gcc-3.0 Version: 1:3.0.4-1 Severity: normal Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too? /usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ? Greetings, erich -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux marvin.xmldesign.de 2.4.18-pre9

Re: Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?

On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote: Package: gcc-3.0 Version: 1:3.0.4-1 Severity: normal Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too? /usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ? The short answer is no, gcc is just package built from gcc-defaults that

Bug#136351: marked as done (gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?)

Your message dated Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:47:29 -0500 (EST) with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives? has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it

Re: Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?

Should we do a debconf item for this? I'm getting tired of seeing this question pop up at least once every two weeks for months now...and I'm sure I'm not alone :-) Maybe tag the bug wontfix and leave it open? I wouldn't consider this bug as fixed, but as should not be fixed. Actually this

Sistema E-libro para bibliotecas

Sistema E-libro para bibliotecas Demo: http://stanford.ebrary.com Lo que podemos hacer por su biblioteca: http://subiblioteca.e-libro.com La Biblioteca de la Universidad de Yale, las Bibliotecas de la Universidad de Stanfordbrindan a sus usuarios, acceso ilimitado a un contenido de

Bug#134262: No segfault if only linked with glut once?

Hi... Well, I don't know why this works really and I haven't investigated to deep since... well, it works... :) In osg there is a osgGLUT plugin/library that uses glut... Earlier when an application was compiled we linked both osgGLUT (that linked glut in compilation) and glut itself