On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:07:46 +0200 Reinhard Tartler <siretart@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34:51 (CEST), Neil McGovern wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> >I'm not sure there are any in the original, plugins and a greater > >> >optimisation level certainly aren't things which will solve specific > >> >problems. Could you highlight them for me? > >> > >> Having these features available for developers, and having not to > >> wait two years until these appear in a stable release is worth the > >> update. Exposing a new compiler version to upstream developers > >> helps reducing the delta between upstream and debian packages. Yes I > >> think this is worth having it in squeeze. > >> > > > > I don't think that stable is the place for doing active development. > > stable is in the place so that (upstream) developers can develop their > applications with hopefully state-of-the art tools. To a point, but upstreams using stable also expect the dependencies to build using the stable toolchain and there are still bugs outstanding (one in my own package) where packages already in Squeeze fail to build from source with gcc-4.5. gcc-4.5 can't be the default compiler for Squeeze, so why would it be suitable to be added for only a subset when this could cause more breakage. > >> >At the moment, I'm still not sure on the actual advantage of > >> >introducing this new package at this stage in the release cycle. > >> > >> well, currently I don't see any arguments against the upload, just > >> some feelings that could apply to any package. > >> > > > > That's kinda the point. These apply for any package, and especially so > > for a toolchain. > > > > Given that there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for gcc4.5 in > > squeeze, I'm afraid it's not going to make it for this release. > > - gcc-4.5 brings many improvements (e.g., improved C++0x support) that > help developers a lot during development. > > - applications developed with g++-4.5 require g++-4.5's runtime > library, they won't *run* with g++-4.4's libstdc++6 package. > > The second point appears very compelling to me since a considerable > demand during squeeze's lifetime can be expected because of the first > point. To me, the second point actually counts against allowing gcc-4.5 because it makes it a requirement that the entire dependency chain of a C++ program using g++-4.5 would either generate new bugs or require rebuilds using g++-4.5 merely to use the optional compiler. Stable releases need a stable toolchain with known bugs, not a comparatively untested optional compiler with compatibility issues against the existing binary packages available in Squeeze. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp8sNtpLTm6q.pgp
Description: PGP signature