Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 March 2003 16:29, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:09:54PM +0100, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> > On Friday 21 March 2003 08:52, you wrote:
> > > Hi Ralf,
> > >
> > > the g++ libraries from your backport of the experimental packages of
> > > XFree86 4.3.0 you announed at [1] are compiled with g++ 2.95 although
> > > they must be compiled with g++ 3.2.
> >
> > Hi Adrian,
>
> Hi Ralf,
>
> > well, considering that woody's default compiler is gcc 2.95 I don't see a
> > reason to compile it with gcc-3.2. That would basically mean that I would
> > need to do a woody transition to gcc-3.2 completely and there's no way
> > I'm going to do that :-)
>
> the correct way is to do a reverse g++ transition, IOW: compile with
> 2.95, postfix the package names with a -gcc2.95 or a c0 (or whatever
> else you like) and let your library packages conflict with the g++ 3.2
> compiled library packages in unstable.
>
> > > Much worse is that this will cause breakages if people use these broken
> > > packages together with packages from sarge/unstable or if they use
> > > other packages you backported together with correct future XFree86
> > > 4.3.0 packages from sarge/unstable.
> >
> > I'm building woody only and woody is - as you surely know - relying on
> > 2.95 as its compiler.
> >
> > If people are mixing their woody installations with stuff from testing
> > and unstable they clearly have to know what they're doing - because
> > they'll run into such problems.
> >
> > Either stick with woody (my repositories are large enough to fulfill the
> > current desktop user's needs and you can get OO and Mozilla elsewhere) or
> > go with testing and unstable.
>
> Debian has a very good reputation for working upgrades between stable
> releases.
>
> One day Debian 3.1 will be released and people will start to do both
> complete and partial upgrades from Debian 3.0 plus your packages to
> Debian 3.1. With your current packages this will cause various
> breakages for many people.
That's why I'm sticking with backports on a lower revision number to make sure
that you can always upgrade. The XFree packages though are an exception for
that because 4.3 isn't in unstable yet. As people are already using it on a
large scale I'm probably sticking with what dannys gives me and then see how
far we can get. The conflicts with the libs in unstable is a good idea unless
xfree 4.3 isn't in unstable yet. As my packages are using 0woody as a postfix
this should be a clear division (that's what everyone else is doing too)
Ralf
>
> > Ralf
>
> cu
> Adrian
- --
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Nolden
nolden@kde.org
The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project
http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+ezHLu0nKi+w1Ky8RAgIJAKCL0lhHxjQ/4fQD+HjWIe/OJYnf8ACdGEMg
V1GvXdP4tJeGpAHTZnMPLTA=
=pyWY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: