[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb

Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb"):
> I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a
> libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the 
> debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709.
> The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date 
> Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose.
> In the discussion on this issue recorded in the bug log and on our 
> list, it seems clear that the d-i team does not want C++ support in 
> the installer environment, and the gcc maintainer is reluctant to 
> build and support udebs that the installer team doesn't need.  The 
> question before us is therefore whether to support or overrule the 
> developer responsible for our gcc packaging, and the developers 
> involved in the debian-installer project.

I'm reluctant to rule on this now in this way.  Mainly, because in the
future somebody (other than Sven) might come up with a good reason to
do a libstdc++ udeb and then people will think we have forbidden it
(or advised against it).

I don't think we have really had a proper technical discussion about
this - at least, not one that's finished.  Until we have one, I don't
think we should make this decision.  That discussion would need the
services of someone competent and useful to champion the `pro'
arguments, but at the moment we don't have any such person available.

So I would prefer my previous resolution instead of this one - but I
didn't get enough support for that.

Regarding this resolution, I'd like my vote as follows to be recorded
although the outcome is no longer in doubt (and the committee seems to
disagree with me).

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709
> [ 2 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709
> [ 1 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++
udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like
people to give it all due consideration.  If the situation changes I'm
sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of
changing their minds.


Reply to: