Nikita V. Youshchenko writes: > > > Package: gcc-doc > > Version: 4:4.1.1.nf3 > > > > Hi > > > > gcc-4.2 /suggests/ gcc-4.2-doc, but does not /provide/ that package. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> LANG=C apt-cache policy gcc-4.2 > gcc-4.2: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 4.2.1-4 > Version table: > 4.2.1-5 0 > 600 http://blacky unstable/main Packages > 4.2.1-4 0 > 620 http://blacky testing/main Packages > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> apt-cache show gcc-4.2-doc | egrep 'Source|Section' > Section: doc > Source: gcc-4.2 > Section: doc > Source: gcc-4.2 > > So gcc-4.2-doc is really built from gcc-4.2 source. > > Short before etch, there was all that story about removing FDL docs from > main. And it very looked like etch was going to be released without gcc > documentation even in non-free. Because availability of compiler > documentation is very important for my personal workflow, I've created > gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg [non-free] and gcc-doc-defaults [contrib] packages, > that provided the documentation. > > Currently, gcc-4.2-doc *is* in main. Does this mean that FDL paranoia has > gone to past, or gcc-4.2-doc is in main just in error - I don't know. But > depending on this, either non-free and contrib packages should be updated, > or gcc-doc should be provided by gcc-defaults (as it was some time ago). > > Matthias, could you please comment on this?
please see my comment in #442445 Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
