https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-02-16 20:40 -------
Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
What?
I assume you're talking about colorgccrc point to the actual binaries
instead of the alternativized symlinks, which you're right, makes no sense.
Oh, but right now the alternative points to colorgcc, which wouldn't
work. Ahh, but I see that the paths to the gcc binaries are also in
/usr/bin/colorgcc itself, so I guess colorgccrc just lets you change
those, but the lines for the compiler paths don't really need to be
there in colorgccrc (they could be removed or commented out).
Well that's no good. Basically nobody will do that and it'll be like
getting rid of it entirely :o(
It shouldn't be necessary as long as there's a solution to the problem
discussed above, and I think I proposed a sufficient one.
Just make /etc/colorgcc a config(noreplace) file. This should be OK, so
long as colorgccrc is fixed in regards to compiler paths discussed above.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
------- Reminder: -------
assigned_to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: NEW
creation_date:
description:
The following error is recieved doing urpmi --update --auto --auto-select
Installation Failed:
file /etc/colorgccrc from install of gcc-colorgcc-3.2.2-1mdk conflicts with
file from package gcc2.96-colorgcc-2.96-081mdk
these two should be capable of co-existing and in fact are both needed (untill all the
worlds software will compile with gcc3.x)
