Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 07:19:03PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
I'm inclined to agree with this; I think that build-essential should
point to the current C++ ABI. For instance, otherwise the minimal
"Hello World" _shared library_ will not work...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: