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
