Re: gcc 3.2 is now the default compiler in unstable
Michael Banck <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:38:18PM +0100, "Martin v. Lwis" wrote:
>> I haven't checked, but I would expect that migration of gcc-defaults
>> itself would render a number of packages in testing uninstallable,
>> because they happen to depend on earlier gcc versions (on purpose or by
> Why would something depend on gcc? (I'm not talking about
> Build-Dependencies of course) Even if some exotic package would
> depend on gcc, this would be no big scale problem for testing.
Some packages need to, because they use gcc in their normal operation.
bigloo is an example: it works by translating Scheme to C, which then
has to be compiled.
"apt-cache showpkg gcc" shows a bunch of similar packages, and quite a
few -src packages, which may well not need to depend on gcc, I guess.