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

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

* Ian Jackson (ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk) [070625 19:03]:
> 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.

Well, if anyone would come up with a good use that might be enough for
me to reconsider it really. :)

For me, the issue is: We don't have a real use case up to now. Nobody is
forbidden to generate a libstdc++-udeb, and show a real use case.
Integrating things on ftp.d.o isn't the first step in development these
days. And if we have that case, one might want to convince the
maintainer first. If all that fails, I don't see that one must not make
another call to the technical committee.

But it is not enough to get a overruling (at least from me) to point out
theoretical advantages that nobody in Debian is intending to work on or
use. And also, I doubt udebs are the intended thing for embedded - of
course, if we get some real show cases from embedded people, that might
make me change my opinion.

Regarding further discussion: I think this bug report has been open long
enough now, and sometimes I prefer to get things done - we don't have
"nobody is allowed to open a case with udebs again" as part of the
resolution, but of course I would prefer if a new request would only be
opened in case there is a proven usecase, i.e. the facts have changed.


Reply to: