Re: gcc 3.2 is now the default compiler in unstable
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:38:18PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I haven't checked, but I would expect that migration of gcc-defaults
> itself would render a number of packages in testing uninstallable,
> because they happen to depend on earlier gcc versions (on purpose or by
> mistake).
Why would something depend on gcc? (I'm not talking about
Build-Dependencies of course) Even if some exotic package would depend
on gcc, this would be no big scale problem for testing.
libstdc++ might be another story, though...
Michael
--
<canard> this is the END OF THE WORLD !
<doogie> so, anyone for tetrinet?
Reply to: