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

Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 20:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:52:20PM +0000, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:54:20 +0000, Eduardo Pérez Ureta
> > <eperez@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> > > We would have one package for gcc-2.95 and other one for gcc-3.2 but
> > > once all programs start to be compiled with the gcc-3.2 libraries the
> > > gcc-2.95 libraries can be purged out of Debian.
> > Excuse me for butting in, but I was wondering if the plan is to remove
> > all earlier version of gcc from unstable once the transition is
> > complete? The reason I am asking is that gdb currently has problem
> > when used with g++-3.1 or later (known issues, I believe), and
> > g++-2.95 does not support things I need, so I usually wind up using
> > g++-3.0 with gdb. I'm not sure what I will do if Debian changes things
> > so that only gcc-3.2 or later can be installed, but it will certainly
> > make things more difficult for me with regard to debugging.
> I believe that the plan is to remove old vesrions of gcc from unstable
> once the transition is *complete*; but it is not a *complete* transition
> until there are no packages in the archive which build-depend on older
> versions of gcc.
> If there are packages that don't work well with gcc 3.2, however, don't
> wait to file the bugs.

Agreed here. IMHO the best way to atack the broken packages is to file
bugs once they stop working when the transition has begun.

Sean Harshbarger

http://coaster.sourceforge.net Coaster - The Gnome CD Burner

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: