X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <960297 DOT 52729 DOT qm AT web51504 DOT mail DOT re2 DOT yahoo DOT com> Subject: RE: octave-3.0.2-2 Requires gcc4 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:10:20 +0100 Message-ID: <00c801c92e17$5e0fa960$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <960297.52729.qm@web51504.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com James R. Phillips wrote on 14 October 2008 16:14: > Hi, > > The experimental version of octave, octave-3.0.2-2, compiled with gcc4, > requires gcc4 to be installed in order to use the gcc4 runtime libraries. It only requires gcc4-runtime, then. > Currently setup.exe will allow octave-3.0.2-2 to be installed without > requiring gcc4 to also be installed. This should be addressed to avoid > non-functional installations of octave. I don't think it's possible to specify different dependencies for the "current" and "test" versions of a package, so in general it makes sense that they should be right for the mainstream ("current") version, otherwise everyone using the "current" version would be obliged to install an unneeded package. (This could be a good feature enhancement for setup.exe et al., but it isn't possible yet). Anyone using "experimental" package versions is expected to be alert to the possibilities of complications that might need a bit of manual intervention; that's the reason why they aren't installed by default. It's a minor oversight that Marco forgot to mention this issue in the release announcement, but it's probably too late to do anything about; there probably won't be another octave test release before gcc4 goes mainstream anyway. (At which point we may even put gcc4-runtime into the "Base" category and make sure everybody gets it installed regardless; but I don't want to think about that until I'm sure it'll be stable.) cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/