Your message dated Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:33:29 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#213618: gcc-3.3-doc: "info gcc" brings up internals docs,
not user docs
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; 1 Oct 2003 15:20:18 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 01 10:20:17 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from h00a0cc5ad757.ne.client2.attbi.com (techloaner2.idiomtech.com)
[65.96.178.14]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A4im1-0002Sb-00; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:20:17 -0500
Received: from pimlott by techloaner2.idiomtech.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1
(Debian))
id 1A4jdP-0006Wp-00; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:15:27 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.3-doc: "info gcc" brings up internals docs, not user docs
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.29
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:15:26 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_1
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: gcc-3.3-doc
Version: 1:3.3.2-0pre4
Severity: minor
It's intuitive for "info gcc" to document use of the compiler, but the
stand-along info reader finds gccint-3.3 in preference to gcc-3.3. I
don't know what the rules are for finding info files, but it would be
nice to arrange for gcc-3.3 to take precedence.
Andrew
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux techloaner2 2.4.21-techloaner2+ipsec #1 Sun Jun 22 12:12:48 EDT
2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US
Versions of packages gcc-3.3-doc depends on:
ii gcc-3.3-base 1:3.3.2-0pre4 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 213618-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2003 08:34:13 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 05 03:34:04 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 1A64L6-0006Fw-00; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 03:34:04 -0500
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26477;
Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:33:29 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id h958XT5Q026349;
Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:33:29 +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, 5 Oct 2003 10:33:29 +0200
To: Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#213618: gcc-3.3-doc: "info gcc" brings up internals docs, not
user docs
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[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=-6.7 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_30,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_03
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Andrew Pimlott writes:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 03:26:18PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > or install the gcc-doc package.
>
> Oh. Oh. I didn't realize that /usr/bin/gcc was managed by gcc
> instead of alternatives. With this setup, I see that it is easy to
> solve the problem by installing gcc-doc. However, if gcc were
> managed by alternatives, then this solution wouldn't be possible.
> Ie, info isn't compatible with alternatives. Oh well.
the gcc link isn't managed by update-alternatives.
