[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable



* Hamish Moffatt (hamish@debian.org) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 07:34:35AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Simon Richter (sjr@debian.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.

Once gcc-defaults is updated all of the buildds will start compiling
things with gcc3.2 unless the package has some explicit statement to the
contrary.  Developers who are going to be compiling c102 packages should
make sure their systems are updated (we require this in other ways
anyway I'm pretty sure).  Therefore I would say, no, they don't have to
build-depend on gcc >= 2:3.2-1; it's the current default and there's
nothing to say that someone couldn't download the source and build a
non-c102 package from it.  In fact, I imagine the 'source' portion won't
have the c102...

	Stephen

Attachment: pgpUMmUI1_vuN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: