Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6 (READ ME)
On 22 Feb 1998, James Troup wrote:
> 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?
Then we should stay with 2.7. 2.8 sounds very poor to me and we have no
idea if/when theren will be another release (closed development).
EGCS simply is a must for C++, though I haven't had time to look into 2.8.
Personally I think we should put egcs and it's libstdc++ into stable and
leave 2.8 in unstable or create a package with a new name so we can have
all three at once.
I think this works fine for C, but will disable 2.7's C++ support because
of the new libstdc++. This will also break a number of programs that
relied on the obsolete libg++ classes (String, etc) and on broken g++ 2.7
behaviour.
At this time it doesn't sound wise to remove 2.7.
Jason
--
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: