[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Unparsable gcc version string? [WAS: lily 1.4.15]

Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> writes:

> I'm not suggesting compiler bugs should be supported; I'm generally
> against that.  It's not your problem if people have broken compilers 
> (even if they can't upgrade them), and I'm not suggesting people go out
> of their way for that case, any more than I'd suggest working around the
> version bug you're dealing with now.

Ok.  But still.  If you say you're ANSI C++, people won't install gcc
if *I* say that their compiler is buggy.  Demanding gcc has been a
very good choice.

> Even if you only care about G++, using feature tests is more effective
> than version tests, since it's far more likely to simply work with newer
> versions of the compiler (and libraries) that you havn't got to yet.

Yes.  But it's also a lot more work.  Patches appreciated.


Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: