Your message dated Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:04 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative
system
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; 6 Jan 2005 22:06:48 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 06 14:06:48 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from (enterprise.dogan.ch) [147.87.62.33]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CmfmJ-0000Kv-00; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:06:48 -0800
Received: from kibako.kinali.ch (kibako.kinali.ch [213.144.141.156])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by enterprise.dogan.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538776D9F
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:06:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: from attila by kibako.kinali.ch with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1CmfmH-0000vu-1o; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:06:45 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.2
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:06:45 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.5-5
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software
It is possible to have various versions of gcc&co installed,
though none of the packages use the alternative system but
a couple of unrelated symlinks in /usr/bin.
Thus, these symlinks get overwritten on every update.
eg i have gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 installed currently,
with 3.4 as default. With the last update of gcc-3.3
all my symlinks got overwriten.
This should be denfintily fixed and done the correct way.
Attila Kinali
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.9-swsusp.2.1.5
Locale: LANG=de_CH, LC_CTYPE=de_CH (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages gcc-3.3 depends on:
ii binutils 2.15-5 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpp-3.3 1:3.3.5-5 The GNU C preprocessor
ii gcc-3.3-base 1:3.3.5-5 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.4.3-6 GCC support library
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 289045-done) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Jan 2005 16:01:09 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jan 08 08:01:09 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CnJ1Y-0000P8-00; Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:01:08 -0800
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.17.13])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28443;
Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:06 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294A7F216;
Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:06 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP
id 19860-40; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:05 +0100 (MET)
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP;
Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id j08G14o2022933;
Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:04 +0100 (MET)
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: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:01:04 +0100
To: Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Attila Kinali writes:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:15:38 +0100
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Attila Kinali wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:56:04 +0100
> > > "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.4 /usr/local/bin/gcc
> > >
> > > LOL, this is a joke ? Right ?
> >
> > No.
>
> I still consider it to be one.
>
> > > Look, i don't mind if you say that the symlinks belong to the package
> > > managment. I don't mind if you say i'm not supposed to touch them
> > > by hand. But there is a default which version of gcc should be used.
> > > And if there is a default there should be a way to change _this_
> > > default _with_out_ using a workaround.
> >
> > Read e.g. http://bugs.debian.org/119952 for an answer.
>
> I've read it and there is nothing that adresses any of my
> argument. It just states that it doesn't fit into your
> way of doing things.
>
> Breaking things isnt an issue, because
> 1) There are only 2 things that can break: C++ programs
> and kernel modules.
No. See the upstream release notes for all releases and search for
"ABI incompatibilities".
> 2) They can only break when compiling new programs/modules
>
> Though I'm compiling a lot of c++ programs with different
> gcc versions linking against the debian packages none of them
> broke.
> But when using a different compiler to compile modules than the
> kernel was compiled with, things will definitly break.
>
> 3) I as an admin, want to be able to set the default compiler,
> no matter what my distro was compiled with and i don't want to
> mess with PATH because it doesn't fit into your way of doing things.
> I want to be able to compile the kernel with that, compile my
> modules, my programs, everything with _my_ default (again w/o
> workarounding your "way of doing things")
if you insist to shoot yourself, use dpkg-divert.
closing the report.
Matthias
