Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 08:44, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mar 07/01/2003 à 14:36, Hamish Moffatt a écrit :
> > 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.
build-essential is not itself build-essential, so there is no paradox.
> Surely not. It would have to depend on e.g. gcc-2.95 and use CC=gcc-2.95
> at configure time.
Yep, exactly. Since the gcc-2.95 and the new gcc package (version 3.2)
will be parallel installable, there is no conflict.