This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Lost g++ after update
This is the last one from me on this topic, I promise.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Balazic wrote:
> > A few days ago I downloaded the actual setup.exe ( version 2.416 ) and run
> > it to update my cygwin installation.
> > I just pressed "Next" on each page. After it finished , I rebooted ( it
> > suggested so ).
> > Then I noticed that I don't have g++ any more :
> Install the "gcc-g++" package. A package search at
> <http://cygwin.com/packages/> for "bin/g\+\+.exe" should have found it,
> but there seems to be a bug (which I'm looking into) that truncates the
> match list before it displays "gcc-g++", which may have prompted this
No, the obvious reason for the question is that he simply did a normal
update and lost the g++ functionality that he had previously had.
> > Then I run setup again and set it to reinstall gcc and texinfo. After that
> > texinfo is OK, but g++ is still missing.
> > Any clue what happened ?
> > I am now running setup.exe again and manually selecting gcc-g++.
> > It just finished. g++ works again.
> > Why did it disappear ?
> Because setup by default only upgrades the packages you had installed or
> their dependences. "gcc-g++" was neither. Reading the release
> announcement would have been helpful here.
In a way, it was installed. The problem here is that the previous gcc
pacakge contained all of the gcc, gcc-g++, gcc-g77, etc. functionality.
Relying on the release announcement for this information seems like
asking for this kind of problem report to me.
Additionally, when once chooses all->install to just get everything, the
gcc-core and gcc-testsuite source packages are *always* re-installed.
If the old gcc package had become an empty placeholder dependening on
the new packages that replaced its functionality, this question would not
have been posted. Further more, if there were empty binary packages for
the source only ones (gcc-core and gcc-testsuite), my second observation
would not occur.
It seems to me that the gcc package and the gcc-core packaga are backward
(at least in FSF normal terms).
I wish I knew how to fix it now, but it seems too late to reverse the
package meanings, or fix the dependencies. Suggestions are more than
welcome. IMHO, the empty binary packages for gcc and gcc-core would
still be "a good thing".
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html