On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 12:54:27PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote: > >>>>> "Ray" == Ray <J.H.M.> writes: > > Ray> Personally, I'd rather see the packages that still depend on > Ray> libstdc++2.8 recompiled for libstdc++2.9 . > > Of course, of course, nobody's arguing that. APT will be recompiled > for libstdc++2.9. However, commercial apps and apps that are not part > of Debian will come linked to 2.8, and we should support that. Ok, do we have a consensus? 2.8 should go back in slink, but marked as a oldlib. All packages which we have source to should be recompiled with 2.8 if possable? Any disaggreement? Zephaniah E, Hull. > > -- > Brought to you by the letters N and J and the number 15. > "Son, I am able," she said, "though you scare me." -- They Might Be Giants > Debian GNU/Linux -- where do you want to go tomorrow? http://www.debian.org/ > I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet and YiffNet IRC as Che_Fox. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org >
Attachment:
pgpoj2VkSC6Ym.pgp
Description: PGP signature