On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: > Uh, no. I see no reason why gcc-2.95 must depend on a package which does > nothing more than install a symlink called gcc which, in turn, depends on > gcc-3.3 forcing 3.3 to be installed. Furthermore it is insane that a person > could apt-get install gcc-2.95 ; gcc -v and get 3.3!
Have you ever heard of alternatives? If 2 packages are installed, both providing the same alternative, it's up to you to decide which is used. I'm not saying that /usr/bin/gcc is managed by alternatives, or should be. I'm just saying the use case is the same. If you want gcc-2.95, instead of the default gcc(whatever it is), then call gcc-2.95 directly.
