Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 20:19, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
I initially agreed with this, but Colin Watson convinced me otherwise.
If you look at the definition of build-essential, it is defined so that
a 'Hello World!' type program will build. And it is quite reasonable
for a simple 'Hello World!' type program which does not use any
libraries other than libstdc++ to be compiled with 2.95, and still
work. It being compiled with an older compiler would not affect
anything else. So this makes gcc 3.2 not build-essential.
Reply to: