Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Heath writes:
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Ryan Murray wrote:
> > > * If you maintain a library written in C++:
> > > [snip]
> > 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.
> yes, the build-depends should include "gcc (>= 3:3.2)", and
> build-essentials should be changed as well.
Why don't just have g++ to depend on g++-3.2 instead of g++-2.95?
The build-essential package depends on g++, and g++ is a package which
is always supposed to depend on the "preferred g++ compiler" for a
given Debian release.
If, as a general rule, packages are supposed to compile with g++-3.2,
everything we need is to have a g++ which depends on g++-3.2,
autobuilders will then install the build-essential package in
unstable, which still depends on g++, which in turn depends on g++-3.2.