Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 12:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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 out-of-date won't help at all.
Yes, but at least we have a rather unequivocal statement somewhere that
Debian requires gcc 3.2 to build packages now.
> Either way, a change to the build-essential package itself buys you nothing.
It doesn't actually solve the technical problem, I agree.