On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:06:03PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
>
> By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first
> place! Is that too much to ask? Apparently!
Yes, it is too much to ask, because it is impossible to explain the reason
for something which isn't so. gcc 2.95 doesn't require gcc 3.3, it just
requires some version of the 'gcc' package with a version number >=
1:2.95.3-2.
A more useful question would be, why does gcc-2.95 depend on gcc? The
answer, as usual, you could have found for yourself in the changelog:
gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low
* For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency on
xxx (>= 1:2.95.3-2). Fixes #85135, #85141, #85154, #85222, #85539,
#85570, #85578.
* Fix typos. Add note about gcc-2.97 to README (fixes #85180).
-- Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:19:59 +0100
You may refer to all of those bugs for reasons why this is so.
> "Yeah, so what that you asked for exim 3, bind 8, python2.2 and
> kernel-image-2.4.20. You got them? What do you care that exim4, bind9,
> Python2.3 and kernel-image-2.4.21 were installed!?" Uh, because I didn't ask
> for them to be installed?
You are beginning to rave.
--
- mdz
