Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 01:54:33AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Why don't just have g++ to depend on g++-3.2 instead of g++-2.95?
That's exactly what's waiting in incoming right now (gcc-defaults). The
matter at hand is whether it is necessary or desirable to require that
version 3.2 be used for the build by listing it as a build-dependency.
Otherwise, either can fulfill the build essential requirement for a C++
> 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.
They will not necessarily do so immediately, however. I believe this is a
manual process, to avoid random breakage.