Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 07:34:35AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Simon Richter (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > > I object to changing the build-essential package.
> > Me too; Depending on version x and conflicting with all other versions
> > will no longer work, as you would have to remove build-essential
> > (Especially the autobuilders will be confused, I think).
> I object as well. build-essential should point to gcc/g++ and go with
> gcc-defaults. I don't see any good reason to specify versioning there
> and feel it would be an overall bad idea. The point is that we want to
> build things using gcc3.2, not just have it around (which we have for
> quite some time).
Then each package which builds libXc102 would have to build-depend on
gcc >= 2:3.2-1? Otherwise there's nothing to stop the c102 package being
built with gcc-2.95 or 3.0 or 3.1, defeating the purpose.
Good point about build-essential though; if a package needs an older
version of gcc, it would have to conflict with build-essential, which
seems somewhat paradoxical.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>