Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 07:34, 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).
Well, if nothing else, you should take into account Dan's argument; the
minimal C++ shared library will not work in Debian unless g++ 3.2 is
used, so it should be part of build-essential.
I do still agree that packages like that (and all the other C++
library-using packages) should Build-Depend on g++ (>= 3:3.2), but I
think it still makes sense to do it as part of build-essential.