On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > That's a bit less hackish I suppose than futzing with the symlink
> > directly, but I still believe /etc/alternatives would be a good thing
> > here. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd ask that the gcc symlink move
> > to gcc-3
Joseph Carter writes:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > using dpkg-divert should work even when upgrading the package.
>
> That's a bit less hackish I suppose than futzing with the symlink
> directly, but I still believe /etc/alternatives would be a good thing
>
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> using dpkg-divert should work even when upgrading the package.
That's a bit less hackish I suppose than futzing with the symlink
directly, but I still believe /etc/alternatives would be a good thing
here. If you disagree, that's fi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 126675 112887
Bug#112887: gcc in alternatives?
Bug#126675: gcc: please honor user's gcc symlink setting
Bug#115353: gcc: cc & gcc should use update-alternatives mechanism
Bug#119952: gcc-3.0: could gcc-3.0 be hooked into the alterna
merge 126675 112887
tags 126675 + wontfix
thanks
using dpkg-divert should work even when upgrading the package.
Joseph Carter writes:
> Package: gcc
> Version: 2:2.95.4-9
> Severity: wishlist
>
> I have changed the gcc symlink on my system to point to gcc-3.0 to help
> work out the kinks with th
Package: gcc
Version: 2:2.95.4-9
Severity: wishlist
I have changed the gcc symlink on my system to point to gcc-3.0 to help
work out the kinks with the compiler (I've found only a few) and to make
use of -march=athlon. The gcc symlink was reset to 2.95 on upgrade.
Please consider leaving it be if
6 matches
Mail list logo
