Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:24, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm quite happy for it to be expressed in individual packages'
> build-depends (although it's a bit of a pain for backporting to stable,
> but hey ...).
Do you agree also that it *should* be there? If it's not in
build-essential, then any C++ program using a library besides libstdc++
or qt2 will need to be compiled using g++ 3.2. Otherwise it will not
work, which means it is a build time dependency.
> Basically, I don't think build-essential is there to keep our toolchain
> in sync, for some nebulous definition of the word, and I think life
> would be much simpler if it didn't try to do that. But then, yours is
> the final say on that.
I see your point, and I think I agree now.
Since the gcc maintainer is also lobbying for build-essential to be
updated (see #175596), I'd like to hear his reasoning on this though.