Re: GCC 3.2 transition

[Gerhard Tonn <GerhardTonn@swol.de>]

On Friday 16 August 2002 15:51, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I got sick of listening to people discuss the gcc 3.2 transition in an
> uninformed manner.  So I've whipped up a transition plan which will
> hopefully get us from A to B without causing too much pain.  Haha.
> I'm entirely fallible and I don't pretend to understand all the issues
> involved with doing the transition.  But by writing down a plan at
> least it can be updated and fixed before we have to start _doing_
> the transition.
>
> Comments and corrections welcomed.  
>

I think, the question is, whether the transition should be done by the 
package maintainers or by the platform porters. 

If it is done by the platform porters a special build server has to be setup 
for each platform recompiling all packages depending on c++. A wanna build 
feature creating packages for NMUs can be used. The packages that have been 
built successfully can then be uploaded to a local archive or to auric which 
will probably break some other packages. The packages that haven't been built 
successfully have to be rebuilt. This is basically the approach used to build 
packages for a new architecture. The advantage is that the transition takes 
probably only one week on most architectures. The disadvantage is that we 
must know all C++ packages in advance.

Gerhard