On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 08:14:27PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > 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++ > compiler. I think it's important that the 'C++ compiler' build-essential requirement *not* be satisfied by a compiler that builds to an older, broken ABI. If someone needs that ABI, they have special build dependencies beyond the scope of build-essential, IMHO. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpJe0_0nvzgq.pgp
Description: PGP signature