Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6 (READ ME)
On Sun, Feb 22, 1998 at 03:28:43PM -0700, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Christian Leutloff wrote:
> > I don't see a need for choosing a default compiler. It should (better
> > must) be possible to use them simultaneously in our distribution. Same
> > as we are supporting different kinds of emacs we should make different
> > C compiler available.
> Sure, we should. But we have to prioritize. One of these packages has to be
> more equal than the others. And since that one will be the compiler all the
> users will see, as well as being the compiler which all packages will be
> built with, the choice is pretty damn important.
We will come to a point, where gcc 2.7.2 will not be able to compile all
packages (C++ comes to mind. Only recently gcc 2.7 was able to compile
libgtkmm, because of substantial changes in libgtkmm. Others may follow).
I don't know when this will be. Hopefully gcc 2.8 will then be usable.
Is it a bug in the standard compiler if a package can't be compiled or a bug
in the package? If a package can be compiled with egcs (and it follows the
standard of that language), but can't be compiled with gcc, what is to fix?
> > What should we do if an upstream author decide rely on features that
> > the other compiler don't has.
> If we're forced to use another compiler, we use another compiler. But
> barring that, all packages should be built with the _same_ compiler. See
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .