On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:21:59PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Stefan Teleman wrote: > > > > > >Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > >>Your confusing "build dependencies" with "delivery". > > > >No, i am not. Please read my explanation again. I believe it was pretty > >clear the first time around. > > It is *NOT* clear because I came to the same conclusion as Garrett. > > I've already asked for this case to be put in 'waiting need spec' so > that I can see the GCC4 case and see the bigger picture. This is > required only because this case is introducing a gcc4 subdir.
An alternative solution would be to just deliver: - binutils in /bin with 'g' prefixes for conflicting utils - binutils in /usr/gnu/bin without 'g' prefixes for utils that don't normally have the 'g' prefix - if there is a stability concern w.r.t. binutils then also deliver binutils in /usr/gnu/binutils/<version> That would divorce this case from the future GCC4 case, except in so far as this one would be a dependency of the other one. Nico --
