[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 10:39:30PM -0500, Colin Walters 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. 

This would be fine if the build-essential package declared 'c-compiler'
or 'c++-compiler'.  It doesn't:  it declares a dependency on 'gcc' and
'g++', which always point to a specific version of gcc.  There's no
reason why now, of all times, we would allow two different, quite
incompatible versions of g++ to satisfy the build-essential

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp0T1yH3Q2Qn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: