Re: gcc 4.1 or not
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:34:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:59:27AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > > > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
> > > what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch
> > > is going to ship with 2.3?
> > what about the transition to libgnutls13 ? I noticed yesterday when
> > debootstraping that we get libgnutls11, 12 AND 13 installed by default.
> > Do we really need that many libgnutls ?
> I don't see anything at all in the reverse-deps that would explain
> libgnutls11 being pulled in by debootstrap. Is it still hard-coded in a
> package list somewhere in the version of debootstrap you're using?
# grep-available -s Package -s Priority -P libgnutls
> Anyway, it would be nice to get libgnutls11 out of etch completely, but
> AFAICT it should at least have been removed from the list of base libs
> already. If you wanted to file bugs and NMU (*not* 0-day NMUs) to take it
> the rest of the way, that'd be great. :)
I promise I'll deal with that as soon as I'll have time.