hmm, I don't seem to understand thw whole problem, but anyway: you can get 2.95.3 packages for potato at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc-2.95-potato/ Untested, use it at your own risk. Peter T. Breuer writes: > Package: gcc-2.95 > Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1 > Severity: normal > > > gcc 2.95.4's package information (I compiled it on potato) shows that it > requires gcc 2.95.3 or better in order to INSTALL, although obviously > one can bootstrap its COMPILATION from nearly any gcc. > > HOWEVER, there is no 2.95.3 package that I could find on debian to which > I could upgrade my potato's 2.95.2. Thus there is no way of getting to > where I want to be without being there already, as far as I can see > (modulo the existence of some dummy gcc package provided by gcc-2.95 of > which I am unaware, and that is quite possible). > > I.e. you are at one fixpoint of a dependency problem, and I am at > another. If I currently do an apt-get -f install, it tells me: > > The following packages will be REMOVED: > cpp-2.95 g++ g++-2.95 gcc-2.95 libdb2++-dev libdb2.6++-dev libsp1-dev > libstdc++2.10-dbg libstdc++2.10-dev libstlport4.5-common > libstlport4.5-dev > protoize-2.95 > > Hic. > > And what I need is something dummyish that probably links /usr/bin/gcc to > gcc-2.95 and replaces gcc 2.95.2 as a package. Correct? > > -- System Information > Debian Release: 2.2 > Kernel Version: Linux betty.it.uc3m.es 2.4.20-SMP-XFS #15 SMP Thu Jan 9 > 00:58:05 CET 2003 i686 unknown > > Versions of the packages gcc-2.95 depends on: > ii binutils 2.12.90.0.1-4 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti > ii cpp-2.95 2.95.4-11woody The GNU C preprocessor. > ii gcc 2.95.2-13.1 The GNU C compiler. > ii libc6 2.1.3-24 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone > > > Feel free to dismiss this bug report. It is not completely > straightforward to compile woody packages on potato, and as I recall > I could not compile objc and decided not to compile g77 and pascal and > java, and the resulting complaints from the make showed me that there > were bits of ad-hoc patchery in the debian rules so that defining the > languages wanted still left the debian/rules* expecting the langauges I > hadn't compiled. To say nothing of a missing runtest script .. well, I > digress. > > Anyway, it's quite possible I erred and there is a fake gcc package > that will "replace" my gcc 2.95.2 now that I have gcc-2.95.4 in place. > But I don't have it. Let me know .. > > Peter > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]