Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:01:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for
> > hurd-i386? Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd
> > like to file the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it
> > updated and need to know if I should tell them gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.1.
> did somebody think about the C++ transition? I am not sure how to
> handle this correctly. One approach would be to require the
> libstdc++ ABI ("v3") included in the package name (and soname?) of
> each C++ library. OTOH we did the switch between previous C++
> version in place as well ...
That's the hassle we've been trying to avoid. If we can go straight
to 3.1 (libstdc++4 package) and avoid a massive compile, I'd like
that.
I'm biased, BTW, in favour of in-place recompile. Aside from apt, I
don't think there's any core system utils that are C++. We call the
distribution unstable for a reason. Apt shouldn't be too bad, because
it doesn't depend on other C++ libraries.
> > We don't plan on uploading gcc-2.95 at this point. If it works
> > better to switch all at once to 3.1.1 that's fine too.
> gcc-2.95 definitely will be in woody+1, because gpc isn't available
> for 3.0 and 3.1. Same for libg++ and chill, but these two probably
> could be dropped.
Our new glibc doesn't have any of the logic to handle both gcc-2.x and
gcc-3.x. Is there any way to build gpc-2.95 and not build the
packages for all the rest? What do the targets that are current gcc-3
do?
--
One of the great things about books is sometimes
there are some fantastic pictures.
-- George W. Bush
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: