Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:52:20PM +0000, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:54:20 +0000, Eduardo Pérez Ureta
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > We would have one package for gcc-2.95 and other one for gcc-3.2 but
> > > once all programs start to be compiled with the gcc-3.2 libraries the
> > > gcc-2.95 libraries can be purged out of Debian.
> > Excuse me for butting in, but I was wondering if the plan is to remove
> > all earlier version of gcc from unstable once the transition is
> > complete? The reason I am asking is that gdb currently has problem
> > when used with g++-3.1 or later (known issues, I believe), and
> > g++-2.95 does not support things I need, so I usually wind up using
> > g++-3.0 with gdb. I'm not sure what I will do if Debian changes things
> > so that only gcc-3.2 or later can be installed, but it will certainly
> > make things more difficult for me with regard to debugging.
> > I may be misunderstanding things, in which case, please feel free to
> > correct me. Also, cc me on any reply if you wish. I'm not on the
> > mailing list, but can check the mailing list archive.
> GCC 2.95 is going to stay, but we plan to remove GCC 3.0. I'm really
> working on the GDB side of things, but it's taking a long time.
> Hopefully I can find more time for it this year than I did last year.
> You can always get 3.0 from Woody and install it, though.
Thanks for replying.
My concern was whether it would in fact be possible after the
transition to install gcc 3.0 from Woody in parallel with the new
default gcc 3.2. If this is possible, there is no problem, but the
preceding discussion left me slightly confused about that.
It seems a shame, however, that the more recent and therefore
presumably "better" 1:3.0.4-13 version now in unstable will presumably
disappear, and only the earlier 1:3.0.4-7 in woody will be
available. Any possibility of replacing the version in woody by the
faheem ~>apt-show-versions -a gcc-3.0
gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4-7 stable
gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4-7 testing
gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4-13 unstable
By the way, no criticism or disrespect (of any kind) was intended by
my comments above regarding gdb, just so you know. Any idea when gdb
might be working well with 3.2?