Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:20:11AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On 2013-07-23 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 23 17:47, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2013 05:38 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>>> gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install
>>>> gcc-core, gcc-g++, etc.
>>> Oh, that's a little different than (a) the name suggests and (b)
>>> historical precedent, which IIRC had "gcc" as a meta package that
>>> pulled in all the other gcc-related stuff you'd need.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'll try that.
>>
>> Shouldn't we introduce an empty gcc binary archive for just this
>> situation?
>
>This is one case where IMO genini is better than upset: genini-generated 
>setup.ini's don't list source-only packages in setup's package selector, 
>while still being available through the "Src" option of any of its 
>subpackages.  Could upset be changed to match, which would avoid this 
>problem for *all* source-only packages?

Why not just rename the package "gcc-src" to make it clear what's going
on?

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple