Re: gcc 3.2 is now the default compiler in unstable
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:49:42PM +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> Practically, applications that have serious bugs w.r.t. gcc 3.2 in them
> won't be installable if they require non-trivial libraries: all other
> binaries will require the c102 version of that library, which conflicts
> with the old version of the library that the existing binary requires.
> As "major" applications will see their g++ 3.2 problems fixed, "minor"
> applications will become "silently uninstallable" over time.
Yup. However, these uninstallability loops will be confined to smaller
sections of the archive, and won't include the gcc-defaults and gcc-3.2
source packages themselves. The largest set of packages that might be
subject to this kind of thing would probably have been KDE3, and that
will be introduced with a new set of library packages all the way down
to libqt3, so it won't be an issue. Smaller loops will trickle into
testing as they resolve themselves one by one, and the packages that
only use libstdc++ will go straight in assuming nothing else is wrong
with them.
> Indeed. My estimate was, admittedly, quite conservative. Let's talk
> about it in 6 months, again :-)
Ack. :-) I won't take the bet that it will be completely finished by
then, but assuming glibc is fixed I'd bet that the problems will be down
to a small percentage of the C++ part of the archive.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: