Debian Bug report logs - #19849
libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Scott K. Ellis" <ellis@valueweb.net>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:12:00 -0500

Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.0.7pre1-4

Since we have both gcc and egcc packages now, could you have libc6-dev
recommend one or the other so interested parties can easilly remove gcc
without dselect throwing a fit?  (the egcc package is in incoming at the
moment)

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.0 (frozen)
Kernel Version: Linux aroostook 2.1.79 #1 Tue Jan 13 14:21:37 EST 1998 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages libc6-dev depends on:
libc6	Version: 2.0.7pre1-4
kernel-headers-2.0.32	Version: 2.0.32-5
gcc	Version: 2.7.2.3-4

Message #10 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>

To: "Scott K. Ellis" <ellis@valueweb.net>, 19849@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:25:19 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:

> Package: libc6-dev
> Version: 2.0.7pre1-4
> 
> Since we have both gcc and egcc packages now, could you have libc6-dev
> recommend one or the other so interested parties can easilly remove gcc
> without dselect throwing a fit?  (the egcc package is in incoming at the
> moment)
> 
I understand what you want, and why. My only problem with this is that it
is still premature to allow egcc to replace gcc. While the egcc package is
known to fix some problems with C++ it has general problems for the
broader gcc compile environment that haven't resolved themselves yet.
I would prefer that for some interumn period we continue to make it
"difficult" to remove gcc. Is there some reason that gcc and egcc can not
both reside on the system?

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"   _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Message #15 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Scott K. Ellis" <ellis@valueweb.net>

To: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>

Cc: 19849@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:44:44 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> 
> > Package: libc6-dev
> > Version: 2.0.7pre1-4
> > 
> > Since we have both gcc and egcc packages now, could you have libc6-dev
> > recommend one or the other so interested parties can easilly remove gcc
> > without dselect throwing a fit?  (the egcc package is in incoming at the
> > moment)
> > 
> I understand what you want, and why. My only problem with this is that it
> is still premature to allow egcc to replace gcc. While the egcc package is
> known to fix some problems with C++ it has general problems for the
> broader gcc compile environment that haven't resolved themselves yet.
> I would prefer that for some interumn period we continue to make it
> "difficult" to remove gcc. Is there some reason that gcc and egcc can not
> both reside on the system?

Mostly my bug is "because it can be done".  I don't know much about the C
stability issues of egcs, but I expect they'll clear up in time.  I'd like
to be able to remove gcc to test egcc with some stuff easier, and would
prefer to not have to fight dpkg and dselect over it.

-- 
             Scott K. Ellis            |        I don't explain myself.
          <ellis@valueweb.net>         |         My friends understand
       ValueWeb Hosting Services       |         and the rest wouldn't
        http://www.valueweb.net/       |           believe me anyway.

Message #20 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>

To: "Scott K. Ellis" <ellis@valueweb.net>

Cc: 19849@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:34:05 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > 
> > > Package: libc6-dev
> > > Version: 2.0.7pre1-4
> > > 
> > > Since we have both gcc and egcc packages now, could you have libc6-dev
> > > recommend one or the other so interested parties can easilly remove gcc
> > > without dselect throwing a fit?  (the egcc package is in incoming at the
> > > moment)
> > > 
> > I understand what you want, and why. My only problem with this is that it
> > is still premature to allow egcc to replace gcc. While the egcc package is
> > known to fix some problems with C++ it has general problems for the
> > broader gcc compile environment that haven't resolved themselves yet.
> > I would prefer that for some interumn period we continue to make it
> > "difficult" to remove gcc. Is there some reason that gcc and egcc can not
> > both reside on the system?
> 
> Mostly my bug is "because it can be done".  I don't know much about the C
> stability issues of egcs, but I expect they'll clear up in time.  I'd like
> to be able to remove gcc to test egcc with some stuff easier, and would
> prefer to not have to fight dpkg and dselect over it.
> 
Well, let me put it to you another way...Why is it libc6's responsibility
to work out a problem between gcc and egcc. Libc6-dev depends on gcc and
does not, at this time, depend on egcc. 

From my point of view on the subject is that it is the responsibility of
the gcc and egcc maintainers to work out the details of providing both
products.

Just "because it can be done" doesn't make it a good thing to do. Everyone
wants libc6 to manage problems with dpkg and the package of their interest
without considering whether that is really the way to deal with the
problem or not.

As the libc6 maintainer I am unwilling to open up libc6 to complaints that
are more properly related to egcc by providing the broader depends. At
some time in the future my position will likely change, but right now I
don't see any advantage to doing this and I see several disadvantages.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"   _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Message #25 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Scott K. Ellis" <storm@stormcrow.ml.org>

To: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>, 19849@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:47:44 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> Well, let me put it to you another way...Why is it libc6's responsibility
> to work out a problem between gcc and egcc. Libc6-dev depends on gcc and
> does not, at this time, depend on egcc. 

It provides a VERSIONED dependancy on gcc, which egcc can never provide.
And it doesn't depend solely on gcc, since it can work with egcc as well.

> From my point of view on the subject is that it is the responsibility of
> the gcc and egcc maintainers to work out the details of providing both
> products.

Yes, but they can't do that if libc6-dev specifically depends on a verion
of gcc.

> Just "because it can be done" doesn't make it a good thing to do. Everyone
> wants libc6 to manage problems with dpkg and the package of their interest
> without considering whether that is really the way to deal with the
> problem or not.
> 
> As the libc6 maintainer I am unwilling to open up libc6 to complaints that
> are more properly related to egcc by providing the broader depends. At
> some time in the future my position will likely change, but right now I
> don't see any advantage to doing this and I see several disadvantages.

In the end, it is your decision, but I hope you'll give it some more
thought.  libc6-dev is useful with just egcc, so forcing gcc as well is a
bug in my opinion.  However, I won't make too large of an issue of it at
this time, although I can't promise I won't be louder about it in the
future.

If you still disagree with me, I hope you might ask opinion on
debian-policy, but I won't fight if you decide to close this bug.

Message #30 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>

To: "Scott K. Ellis" <storm@stormcrow.ml.org>

Cc: 19849@bugs.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:16:00 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > Well, let me put it to you another way...Why is it libc6's responsibility
> > to work out a problem between gcc and egcc. Libc6-dev depends on gcc and
> > does not, at this time, depend on egcc. 
> 
> It provides a VERSIONED dependancy on gcc, which egcc can never provide.

The libc6-dev dependency on gcc is correct, and is there for stability
reasons. 

"which egcc can never provide."? In the first place it is only necessary
that egcc install along side gcc. (If we can provide different,
concurrent, versions of gcc {libc4 and libc5...libc5 and libc6}, then why
not egcc along side gcc?) In the second place, any package can declare
versioned dependency...I don't understand your point...


> And it doesn't depend solely on gcc, since it can work with egcc as well.
> 
While egcc can be used with libc6 to do development on select packages, it
is not yet been used to successfully compile the distribution. It should
continue to be the criterion for inclusion as a "c compiler" in the
distribution. At this point in the development cycle this is not a good
idea.

> > From my point of view on the subject is that it is the responsibility of
> > the gcc and egcc maintainers to work out the details of providing both
> > products.
> 
> Yes, but they can't do that if libc6-dev specifically depends on a verion
> of gcc.
> 
Why? If you insist on removing gcc for "space" considerations, the force
options in dpkg provide the mechanism, but there is no reason that gcc and
egcc can't live together and play nice.

> > Just "because it can be done" doesn't make it a good thing to do. Everyone
> > wants libc6 to manage problems with dpkg and the package of their interest
> > without considering whether that is really the way to deal with the
> > problem or not.
> > 
> > As the libc6 maintainer I am unwilling to open up libc6 to complaints that
> > are more properly related to egcc by providing the broader depends. At
> > some time in the future my position will likely change, but right now I
> > don't see any advantage to doing this and I see several disadvantages.
> 
> In the end, it is your decision, but I hope you'll give it some more
> thought.  libc6-dev is useful with just egcc, so forcing gcc as well is a

While I agree that there are areas where egcc is the preferred choice of
compiler, that is not true for the complete distribution. Gcc is "the"
compiler for development in Debian. While there are currently a few
excepteions to this rule, these are not sufficient to have libc6 support
their installation as a replacement for gcc. That will certainly change in
the future, but the future isn't here yet.

> bug in my opinion.  However, I won't make too large of an issue of it at
> this time, although I can't promise I won't be louder about it in the
> future.
> 
The future would be a better time for this modification.

> If you still disagree with me, I hope you might ask opinion on
> debian-policy, but I won't fight if you decide to close this bug.
> 
I have no problem leaving the bug open, as long as the severity is reduced
to "wish list". The bug system is a good place for issues like this.

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"   _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Message #35 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Scott K. Ellis" <storm@stormcrow.ml.org>

To: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>

Cc: 19849@bugs.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:23:02 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, let me put it to you another way...Why is it libc6's responsibility
> > > to work out a problem between gcc and egcc. Libc6-dev depends on gcc and
> > > does not, at this time, depend on egcc. 
> > 
> > It provides a VERSIONED dependancy on gcc, which egcc can never provide.
> 
> The libc6-dev dependency on gcc is correct, and is there for stability
> reasons. 
> 
> "which egcc can never provide."? In the first place it is only necessary
> that egcc install along side gcc. (If we can provide different,
> concurrent, versions of gcc {libc4 and libc5...libc5 and libc6}, then why
> not egcc along side gcc?) In the second place, any package can declare
> versioned dependency...I don't understand your point...

Yes, but since you depend on a specific version of gcc, egcc can't just
"Provides: gcc" and replace gcc.  I understand the reason why the
versioned dependancy, since apparently earlier versions of gcc can't
handle libc6 (although the percise reasoning why they can't is something
beyond my immediate comprehension).  That doesn't change the fact that a
package called egcc can never satisfy the dependancies of libc6-dev.

> > And it doesn't depend solely on gcc, since it can work with egcc as well.
> > 
> While egcc can be used with libc6 to do development on select packages, it
> is not yet been used to successfully compile the distribution. It should
> continue to be the criterion for inclusion as a "c compiler" in the
> distribution. At this point in the development cycle this is not a good
> idea.

Having know immediate knowledge, I'll have to concede that it is possible
that gcc isn't appropriate for all development (although what besides the
kernel gcc can't handle hasn't become apparent to me).

> > > From my point of view on the subject is that it is the responsibility of
> > > the gcc and egcc maintainers to work out the details of providing both
> > > products.
> > 
> > Yes, but they can't do that if libc6-dev specifically depends on a verion
> > of gcc.
> > 
> Why? If you insist on removing gcc for "space" considerations, the force
> options in dpkg provide the mechanism, but there is no reason that gcc and
> egcc can't live together and play nice.

gcc and egcc do play nice.  Excepting the fact that /usr/bin/gcc is always
gcc and not egcc (which makes modifying makefiles reasonably certain if
they're both insalled), they use alternatives to provide the cc symlink.
But libc6-dev doesn't play particularly nice with egcc by forcing gcc to
be installed as well.

> > > Just "because it can be done" doesn't make it a good thing to do. Everyone
> > > wants libc6 to manage problems with dpkg and the package of their interest
> > > without considering whether that is really the way to deal with the
> > > problem or not.
> > > 
> > > As the libc6 maintainer I am unwilling to open up libc6 to complaints that
> > > are more properly related to egcc by providing the broader depends. At
> > > some time in the future my position will likely change, but right now I
> > > don't see any advantage to doing this and I see several disadvantages.
> > 
> > In the end, it is your decision, but I hope you'll give it some more
> > thought.  libc6-dev is useful with just egcc, so forcing gcc as well is a
> 
> While I agree that there are areas where egcc is the preferred choice of
> compiler, that is not true for the complete distribution. Gcc is "the"
> compiler for development in Debian. While there are currently a few
> excepteions to this rule, these are not sufficient to have libc6 support
> their installation as a replacement for gcc. That will certainly change in
> the future, but the future isn't here yet.

True enough.  Although "because it can be done" has been used as
justification for being more of a pain about a suggestion (the complaint
about being able to yank procmail out from under sendmail comes to mind).
Maybe my ramblings on this are foolish.

> > bug in my opinion.  However, I won't make too large of an issue of it at
> > this time, although I can't promise I won't be louder about it in the
> > future.
> > 
> The future would be a better time for this modification.
> > If you still disagree with me, I hope you might ask opinion on
> > debian-policy, but I won't fight if you decide to close this bug.
> > 
> I have no problem leaving the bug open, as long as the severity is reduced
> to "wish list". The bug system is a good place for issues like this.

I guess I can settle for having this made into a wishlist item.  I'm still
interested in hearing other opinions on the matter (since I have continued
posting this to debian-policy).

Scott

Message #40 received at 19849@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Yann Dirson <ydirson@a2points.com>

To: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>, 19849@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "Scott K. Ellis" <ellis@valueweb.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#19849: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:38:13 +0100

Please note I didn't follow this thread.  I just got hit by its title.

You may want to consider using the c-compiler virtual package.
-- 
Yann Dirson  <ydirson@a2points.com>      | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email:     <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>      |     support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org>      |         more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Message #47 received at 19849-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Schoepf <schoepf@debian.org>

To: 19849-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: libc6-dev: Please recommend gcc | egcc

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:43:07 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

I'm closing this bug for two reasons:

1. libc6 recommends: c-compiler instead of depending on gcc.
2. egcc is now obsolete ;-)


Thomas
-- 
DSA/B0FA4F49;ElG/C631AF6E:FA38 2D7E 408F 61E4 BF49  B48F 04BD F5BE B0FA 4F49
RSA/2EA7BBBD: 08 96 1F CD AD 55 03 0F  95 92 B0 F2 04 32 4B 52

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.