Why not use GCC 3.0?
I just finished the (long) installation process of a Woody on an
AlphaServer and met a lot of problems during and after the install.
The problems I had all resolved when using gcc-3.0, using the "apt-get
-b source" method.
That's why I wonder why not use gcc-3.0 on all binary packages for Woody.
The problems I had resolved by themself when I changed the links to gcc,
cpp and g++ in /usr/bin to use the 3.0 version.
The problems I met:
- plain kernel 2.2.20, 2.4.17 and 2.4.18 (from kernel.org, and, yes, I
needed a more recent kernel because of a Mylex controller in the
machine) did not compile, with random compilation errors.
- Netatalk (188.8.131.52-4) appears to have a strange bug on 64-bits
architectures, however, recompiling it solved this problem for me (bug
The bug has been forwarded to the upstream mainteners (but there doesn't
seem to evolve anymore), but the temporary fix is easy to find (as I was
able to do it!).
Maybe it is even possible to ask for the packaging system to compile
with a given gcc version? I'm willing to continue to update my system
(apt-get rules!), but I would have to check on each upgrade that it
doesn't replace it with a gcc-2.95-compiled version.
PS: Even some of the "unaligned trap" kernel faults on certain programs
(like Samba) disappeared when recompiled with gcc-3.0. "login and su"
are of those.