Maybe you should have the gcc 2.96 package not create the colorgcc subpackage.That's what I am doing and it's even better to have a separate colorgcc package. Because otherwise you would have config files defining the same bits but gcc paths, which is insane (duplicate). I am also removing alternatives from the colorgcc package. The program is called colorgcc, the user needs to use it explicitly.
There may be one problem left though. e.g. user edited colorgccrc files.
