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

Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:41:56AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 07:34, 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).

> 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.

This conclusion doesn't follow from the facts.  Either the build machine
is up to date, in which case g++ already points to g++-3.2; or it's not,
in which case additional hints added to another package that's also
out-of-date won't help at all.  Either way, a change to the
build-essential package itself buys you nothing.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpyJciH7x6KY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: