Hi developers On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 07:02:03PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: >> My suggestion was to install all files and executables for gcc 3.0 >> in /opt/gcc3 instead of /usr, to make sure that the ABIs are _not_ mixed. >> (I am using 'gcc 3.0' as the name of the whole compiler set, not just for >> the C compiler.) There is no need to artificially rename g++ into g++-3.0 >> then. >Come on people, is this a really good way to go? We have unstable, so we >should try an experiment: > >- get all packages depending on the old ABI in a list >- organize a "porting party" >- recompile as many libs and as many applications as possible during the > party (making them ready for NMU). Upload all them to a special > location, so people can test gcc-3.0 compiled apps if they want to! >- if there are less than 50-70% ported, continue in an other party. >- when we have >> 50-70%, upload them to main and report bugs to > remaining packages. > >I know, this proposal is a bit radical, but what should we do? Some >maintainers are sleeping, we would need months to move completely to >gcc-3.0. Yes, I fully agree with that. Debian stable is a good distribution, we know it, but, when we leave out the new gcc, woddy will be quite old, when it become stable. The kernel won't be in woody, too, for standard, afaik, when the new gcc isn't in woody, when we release, it will be a big disapointment, for me and for others. The idea with the porting party is great. The KDE- Developers did Debugging-Parties bevor they released KDE 2, so why shouldn't we do something similar? I'll help on this, when we plan to do it :) Greetings Jan -- One time, you all will be emulated by linux! ---- Jan- Hendrik Palic Url:"http://www.billgotchy.de"; E-Mail: "palic@billgotchy.de"
Attachment:
pgpJRLpjuqMoA.pgp
Description: PGP signature