On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:20:14AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Julian> Yes, except that the g++ package already provides c++-compiler. So I
> Julian> guess we should instead submit a bug against g++, at least for the
> Julian> time being.
>
> On what grounds? We already state that cooperating groups of
> packages can agree on a virtual package amongst themselves, even if
> it is not there in the virtual packages list. So this is a case of a
> group of one package.
>
> At the risk of being branded conservative again, I ask why is
> there need to do anything about this situation? What am I missing? I
> really don't thik we should put things into the virtual packages list
> until we need to (part of my anti policy bloat campaign); and there
> is nothing wrong in g++ being proactive and anticipating future
> alternatives.
OK, you've convinced me. But now, what should I Recommend when I want
to recommend a C++ compiler? g++, because it's the only one we have,
or c++-compiler, given that it is already Provided by g++?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
