Your message dated Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:59 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#184221: gcc-2.95: gcc-2.95 PACKAGE effectively depends on
itself
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; 10 Mar 2003 19:25:59 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 10 13:25:59 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp.uc3m.es) [163.117.136.123]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18sSuM-0005Ks-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:25:59 -0600
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58458431B4
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:25:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from arpa.it.uc3m.es (arpa.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.120])
by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D0799DE4
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:25:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from betty.it.uc3m.es ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [163.117.139.222])
by arpa.it.uc3m.es (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27229;
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:25:54 +0100
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by betty.it.uc3m.es (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id UAA01628;
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:25:53 +0100
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:25:53 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-2.95: gcc-2.95 PACKAGE effectively depends on itself
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
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
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 184221-done) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Jul 2003 11:15:02 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 06 06:14:59 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 19Z7Tu-0001J1-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 06:14:59 -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 NAA11391;
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:13:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id h66BD0r28539;
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:13:00 +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: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:59 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#184221: gcc-2.95: gcc-2.95 PACKAGE effectively depends on
itself
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[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_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Peter T. Breuer writes:
> "A month of sundays ago Matthias Klose wrote:"
> > 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/
>
> OK, minor snag with iostream resolved (it wanted iostream-2.95.info.gz to
> be there and I only had iostream.info.gz so I copied what I had into
> the place that was wanted).
>
> But I notice that these 2.95.3 packages can't resolve the dependency
> problem anyway, because if we look at the requirements for cpp-2.95, for
> example:
>
> Package: cpp-2.95
> Status: install ok installed
> Priority: standard
> Section: interpreters
> Installed-Size: 245
> Maintainer: Debian GCC maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>
> Source: gcc-2.95 (2.95.4.ds13-11woody1)
> Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
> Replaces: g++ (<< 2.91.63-1.1)
> Depends: cpp (>= 1:2.95.3-2), libc6 (>= 2.1.2)
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> and compare with the 2.95.3 available:
>
> cpp_2.95.3-1potato1_i386.deb
> ^^^^^^^^^
looks like you need to recompile the gcc-defaults source package from
woody for potato as well.
I'm closing the report now.
