This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:16:26 -0400
- Subject: Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead
- References: <51EEF4F1 dot 20006 at cs dot utoronto dot ca> <51EDA65A dot 4070002 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <51EEF9D8 dot 6060907 at cs dot utoronto dot ca> <20130723072212 dot GC9689 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51EE3CBB dot 3010005 at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- Reply-to: cygwin 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
>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
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple