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

Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6 (READ ME)

Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:

> Well, it may compile the kernel, but it is broken in respect to C++.

FUD.  If it's ``broken'', how come we managed to get by with it for
rex, bo and hamm till now?  Gee, I wonder how dselect is working? I
heard a rumour that it's written in C++.  And lftp [ ... ad nauseam ].

I realise gcc 2.7.x's C++ is (severely) sub-optimal, but *why*
sacrifice the safety of the majority of the packages for a very small
_minority_?  Could you give me numbers on how many packages in hamm
truly need egcs/2.8 to be built?

> > IMHO we shouldn't sacrifice the safety of our C compiler for the
> > dubious goal of giving the egcs team moral support.
> The moral support is a side effect. The goal is to put pressure on
> the gcc group to release stable versions earlier, as I see it.

My point stands; we shouldn't sacrifice stability of our C compiler to
put pressure on anyone.  What do we care about here; the integrity of
our stable distribution (which hamm will become in a matter of months)
or some misguided political lobbying?


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: