Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?

2002-03-02 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Erich Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit: 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

Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?

2002-03-01 Thread Erich Schubert
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?

2002-03-01 Thread Christopher C. Chimelis
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

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

2002-03-01 Thread Erich Schubert
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