Re: freeze exception for gcc-4.5 (i386, amd64 only)
Arthur Loiret <aloiret@debian.org> writes:
> Hello,
>
> 2010/8/20, Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org>:
>> I don't think that stable is the place for doing active development.
>
> Are you saying that we are developing an operating system which is not
> suitable for active development, or that it shouldn't be made suitable
> for active development?
I think he meant that stable is not the place for active development of
the operating system and I agree with that.
Like I said earlier, the presence of gcc-4.5 in Squeeze does not bother
me. What bothers me is replacing some core libraries like libgcc1 and
libstdc++ with versions from gcc-4.5.
If the plan was to install the gcc-4.5 libraries alongside the gcc-4.4
libraries, I would have no objection. But this would require changing
the sonames of the gcc-4.5 libraries, so is probably not desirable.
> Also, although I really don't know how common this is, I know people
> who use stable for active development, by obligation.
OK, then they use the stable compiler, by obligation :)
gcc-4.5 is not stable: it is in experimental and has not even reached
unstable yet.
gcc-4.4 is stable.
> Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
Right: gcc-4.5 is "nice to have", maybe even "very, very nice to have",
but it does not fix any RC bugs and _might_ introduce some due to
replacing important libraries from gcc-4.4. So, I support the release
manager's decision not to include gcc-4.5 in Squeeze.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Reply to: