X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:56:44 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To:	<20010628174507.A8598@kendall.sfbr.org>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10106291049340.20259-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, JT Williams wrote:

> I may well be overlooking something, but from this thread
> it seems that the _only_ way to get into trouble is to install
> stock djdev203 *after* installing gcc-3.0 

... and answering "yes" when unzip asks whether you want to overwrite
the linker script.

The problem is that we can't stop users from doing exactly that.
Experience has shown that there's no way short of an automatic
splap-user-in-the-face-for-not-reading-READMEs demon that works.

> If this is the case, it sure seems reasonable to me to require
> that djdev 2.03 be installed _prior_ to installing gcc-3.0, i.e.,

... and that's exactly the heart of the problem: there's no foolproof way
of requiring it --- fools are far to ingenous for that. Not unless we
change the packaging to an RPM-like format, for all packages (!), which
outright refuses to install a package if its preconditions aren't
fulfilled.

Neither does that cover the case of an installation from scratch, where
some industrious user may well unzip gcc30b before djdev203.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -