Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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 is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Nov 2001 14:07:17 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 17 08:07:17 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from d-142-25.mannheim.ipdial.viaginterkom.de (localhost)
[62.180.25.142]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16567o-0007Vd-00; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:07:17 -0600
Received: from voss by localhost with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 16565q-0002ey-00; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:05:14 +0100
From: Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: could gcc-3.0 be hooked into the alternatives system?
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.35
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.35
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:05:14 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.2-3
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
I think it would be nice, if the different
flavours of gcc would use the alternatives
system provided by `update-alternatives'.
So the system administrator could choose between
gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0 in an easy way. Would this
be possible?
Jochen
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux tatonka 2.4.14 #1 Sat Nov 10 16:30:53 CET 2001 i586
Locale: LANG=de_DE, LC_CTYPE=de_DE
Versions of packages gcc-3.0 depends on:
ii binutils 2.11.92.0.10-3 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpp-3.0 1:3.0.2-3 The GNU C preprocessor.
ii gcc-3.0-base 1:3.0.2-3 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.2.4-5 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.0.2-3 GCC support library.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 119952-done) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Jul 2003 20:26:38 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 29 15:26:35 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19hb3K-0005ZC-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:26:35 -0500
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17686;
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id h6TKPQn21928;
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
To: Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-14.5 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_VM
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Jochen Voss writes:
> Hello,
>
> I suggest to simply close bug #119952 and friends. It is tagged
> wontfix and you won't get many new copies, because gcc-3.0 becomes out
> of fashion, now.
fine with me. for the record here the explanation:
gcc-x.y doesn't use alternatives to make sure that the preferred
system compiler is used when calling 'gcc'. switching the compiler
may break your system (will break for C++). In most gcc-x.y versions
ABI's are different.
If you want to test gcc-x.y for a particular package,
- use CC=gcc-x.y CXX=g++-x.y when configuring/compiling a package
- make ~<user>/bin/gcc a symlink to gcc-x.y and add it to your path
- if you know what you do, there is the option to divert the gcc/g++
links.
closing the reports, adding to our karma.
