Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
Jeff Bailey writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Considering the "confusion" of having gcc272 as default C compiler
> > and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch
> > switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all
> > architectures at once, if that's possible. So maybe it's reasonable
> > to: upload 3.1 after the woody release, make it the default with the
> > gcc-3.1.1 release? Is this too late for the hurd?
>
> Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for hurd-i386?
> Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd like to file
> the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it updated and need to
> know if I should tell them gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.1.
did somebody think about the C++ transition? I am not sure how to
handle this correctly. One approach would be to require the libstdc++
ABI ("v3") included in the package name (and soname?) of each C++
library. OTOH we did the switch between previous C++ version in place
as well ...
> Note that we haven't got a gcc in the archive yet, so if you choose
> 3.1, we probably won't build 3.0 officially.
There seems to be agreement to drop 3.0 for many architectures.
> We don't plan on uploading gcc-2.95 at this point. If it works
> better to switch all at once to 3.1.1 that's fine too.
gcc-2.95 definitely will be in woody+1, because gpc isn't available
for 3.0 and 3.1. Same for libg++ and chill, but these two probably
could be dropped.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: