[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#212085: Build-dependencies cannot be satisfied in unstable



Matt Zimmerman writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:24:44AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 
> > tags 212085 + wontfix
> > thanks
> > 
> > Matt Zimmerman writes:
> > > Package: gcc-3.0
> > > Version: 1:3.0.4ds3-16 (not installed)
> > > Severity: serious
> > > 
> > > Build-Depends: libc6.1-dev (>= 2.2.5-6) | libc6-dev (>= 2.2.5-6) | libc0.3-dev, libc6.1-dev (<< 2.3) | libc6-dev (<< 2.3) | libc0.3-dev (<< 2.3), m4, autoconf2.13, libtool, gawk, dejagnu (>= 1.4), bzip2, binutils (>= 2.12.90), debhelper (>= 3.0.25), gperf (>= 2.7-3), bison, flex, gettext, texinfo, zlib1g-dev, libgcc1
> > > 
> > > and libc6-dev, of course, is past version 2.3 now.
> > 
> > libstdc++3 does not build on glibc-2.3 based systems, so the build
> > dependencies are correct. I don't know of any patch.
> > 
> > IMO the shared library should still be included in sarge to satisfy
> > the needs of third party packages, and to serve as an compiler
> > alternative on hppa (as does gcc-2.95/gcc-2.96 do on other archs).
> > 
> > I propose to close this report or tag it as sarge-ignore (but I
> > suppose I'm not allowed to do the latter).
> 
> It is a problem for us to ship binary packages that we cannot build.

We did it before shipping unbuildable libstdc++ packages (built from
egcs-1.x), and I assume we are able to find other examples. we still
can build it from source on a (current) stable system. 

> What happens if we needed to do an urgent update on this package
> (e.g., security)?  Or if a user needs to patch and rebuild it?

show me even one security update for a gcc package in the last
years. give me a reason why a user should rebuild a runtime library.

I don't argue that your reasons are invalid, but they are unlikely
enough that it's worth to consider keeping the package in sarge.

	Matthias



Reply to: