Re: gcc-3.2 migration
> * Mateusz Papiernik [Thu, Oct 03 2002, 04:56:40PM]:
> > Do you now something more about gcc-3.2 migration in sid?
> > When it will be done? How long will migration be? etc.
> Depends on when we start it. Since nobody suggested a realistic plan
> that would be better than Willy's, we IMHO continue going this
Who is Willy, and where is this plan summarized?
I'm preparing a new version of the BOOST C++ libraries for upload in
the next week or so. Supposing I wanted to provide packages for both
the default gcc and for gcc 3.2. What are people's thoughts on:
a) Is this a good idea or stupid idea?
b) Can I make the lib packages co-installable?
c) If (b), what naming convention for the libs is advisable?