Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0500, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
>
> 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
> > > <eperez@it.uc3m.es> 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.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> 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
> -13 version?
>
> 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
It's not planned; we really don't want people to keep using 3.0!
> 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?
I'm working on it; I've actually got some time for it this week, let's
see what I can do.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: