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
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .