[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 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.

If you're building the package you should *handle* it then.  Can we quit
with this silliness *please*?  It doesn't need to have depend on
specific versions, and it's *not* a big deal.  The default is now 3.2,
let it go with that and just depend on the bloody default.



Attachment: pgpA707jQOf6c.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: