Re: Exult

["David A. Greene" <greened@eecs.umich.edu>]

Junichi Uekawa wrote:

> Note that gcc-3.0 is the default compiler for some arches, 
> while it is not for i386.


Is it the default for Alpha?  AFAIK that is the only other
platform under which Exult runs.


> > There is the additional concern that the new libraries may not
> > even make it into Woody.  Then we would have no Exult in

> It is more than likely that these libraries will enter woody,
> or some arches won't be...


Sure, I'm not arguing the point.  But the possibility is there.
It's something maintainers should keep in mind when building
their packages, that's all.


> > I'm all for pushing technology, but in this case gcc-3.0 just
> > isn't stable enough to be the default for Woody.  
>
> If that is the case, some arches are going to have problems...


Hopefully they will have fewer problems than with a pre-3.0
gcc release.  I assume those arches adopted 3.0 for very
good reasons.

But it's not relevant to x86 which I assume will be by far
the most common platform for Exult.

I dunno, the compilation decision just doesn't make any
_sense_ to me and I have yet to see a reasonable justification
for it.  It will result in larger installs for users under
Woody for no good reason, really.

This is not to take away the excellent work that has gone
into Exult.  I'm very thankful we have it packaged.
Unfortunately the current version in Woody has a fatal
bug fixed in alpha4, which is in Sid, compiled against
gcc-3.0.

                     -Dave


--

"Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music,
 and you know how big he was."  --  James P. Johnson