Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:18:22AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> 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...
You could build a package that doesn't use the c102 ABI, but it would
have the c102 name. That could be very ugly for backporting.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>