Re: gcc-3.0 transition
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:56:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > Matthias Klose writes...
> > > Matt Taggart writes:
> > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > > > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.
> > > AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been
> > > dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet
> > > frozen.
> > Well I was just guessing it was no longer a release goal.
> > AJ, what's the official plan?
>
> See the post to -devel-announce from last month.
>
> Basically, there aren't "release goals" per se (and haven't been since,
> hmmm, hamm?). If gcc-3.0 is releasable in time (two months + however
> much longer it takes to get working b-f's) it can go in, if not, it can't.
>
> Working on it in experimental in the meantime so you can minimise the
> catastrophes even if you drop it in at the last minute is probably
> worthwhile...
We may have to put it into unstable just so hppa and others can have a
supported compiler. It shouldn't cause any catastrophes since it wont be
used unless someone sets CC=gcc-3.0.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: