On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 10:20 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: > > > > Removed package gcc34 > > > > Not Cool. Maybe --provide those in gcc? > > My understanding is that all the packages with the *gc?34 dependencies are > going to need fixing anyways, so providing these deps from gcc is not > enough. The broken deps are good flags to remind us that the rebuilds are > needed. > > Patches always welcome :) Would this type of thing be avoidable if the gcc34 packages where to have "Provides: gcc 3.4.0" or similar or would that have dorked all kinds of other stuff up? Just looking for ways to properly avoid this kind of problem/non-problem for future cases. -- David T Hollis <dhollis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
