Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Ryan Murray wrote:
> * If you maintain a library written in C++:
Er, won't we *have* to specify build-depends on gcc >= 3.2? Otherwise, the
maintainer will have changed the package names, and modified the .shlibs, but
the buildds will attempt to build against some random gcc.
Also, if buildds suddenly start making use of the new gcc automatically, then
this will break as well, as the package name and shlibs will not have been