Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 06:40:49PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:00, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > yes, the build-depends should include "gcc (>= 3:3.2)", and
> > build-essentials should be changed as well.
>
> That's what I thought too, but Ryan and Colin Watson disagreed. Can you
> guys elaborate?
>
> IIRC, Colin's argument was that most programs could equally well be
> compiled with gcc 2.95 or whatever, so technically the program doesn't
> depend on gcc 3.2. However, my response to that is that it is the
> explicit intention of the package maintainer to have the program
> compiled with gcc 3.2 (especially important for C++), so that should be
> expressed in the Build-Depends.
I'm quite happy for it to be expressed in individual packages'
build-depends (although it's a bit of a pain for backporting to stable,
but hey ...). I just disagree with it being in the dependencies of
build-essential, since the specific gcc version is not 'always needed to
compile, link and put in a Debian package a standard "Hello, World!"
program written in C or C++'.
Basically, I don't think build-essential is there to keep our toolchain
in sync, for some nebulous definition of the word, and I think life
would be much simpler if it didn't try to do that. But then, yours is
the final say on that.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: