[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable

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: pgp0hKOdmPbpU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: