Re: State of the Woody

["Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>]

>> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

 > what is more "stable" than gcc-3.0 for C++? 
 > 
 > - Perhaps in 2.95.x you already know the bugs.
 > + libstdc++ independent from glibc.
 > + standard compliant (backward headers as well).

 Agreed.  gcc 3.0 *is* a better C++ compiler than what we have know.
 The only problem is that loads of code break under it (in a similar
 fashion to the way -fstrict-aliasing broke stuff).  If gcc 3.0 is
 introduced at some late stage in woody, probably not much will be
 recompiled with it because we'll keep the current libstdc++2.10
 packages, which means we'll release with an unknown ammount of packages
 that can't be compiled from sources.  It think last time this was
 suggested: just let an autobuilder have a go at the potentially
 problematic packages (about 500 of them) and file bugs.  This would be
 a worthwhile excercise to do *before* getting gcc 3.0 into woody.
 (note testing here does nothing, the bugs will be filed against
 packages already in testing and this wouldn't prevent gcc from getting
 in)

--
Marcelo