On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 04:45:00AM -0400, Andy Saxena scrawled: > Thanks for the information. However, will there be any other issues for > users of the current 3.0.x (or 3.1.xi, when it's available) packages > once KDE3 moves into unstable after being compiled with gcc 3.2? KDE3 in unstable will be 3.1, so the packages will need to be rebuilt anyway. There's a transition plan[1] that defines a way to do this without breaking anything; you should read it. > It seems there are some issues, that I don't quite understand, with > having the gcc 2.95 compiled packages in the main unstable tree. These > issues are related with the gcc 3.2 transition. I would think those of > us running these packages will face the same issues. Not really. KDE 2.2 and 3.0 will be built with gcc < 3.x, and KDE 3.1 will be built with gcc 3.2, it's really as simple as that. Wait, let's make it even more simple. To draw a line in the sand, anything built past this point in time is gcc3.2. :) d [1]: http://people.debian.org/~willy/c++-transition.html -- Daniel Stone <daniel@raging.dropbear.id.au> <dstone@kde.org> Developer - http://kopete.kde.org, http://www.kde.org Proof BitMover are community-focussed: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103384262016750&w=2
Attachment:
pgpKDVYEOf5Lp.pgp
Description: PGP signature