Re: freeze exception for gcc-4.5 (i386, amd64 only)
2010/8/20, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>:
> Arthur Loiret <aloiret@debian.org> writes:
>> 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.
There is no regression in the runtime libraries tests, and they run
very fine with our current testing distribution. You can try by
yourself if you don't believe so.
>> 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.
Upstream GCC version 4.5.0 has been released in mid april, and GCC
4.5.1 has less serious regression than GCC 4.4.4.
Please explain why do you think gcc-4.5 isn't 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.
Same thing again: it has been tested and works well. I understand your
bad feeling about this, but it has no reason to be.
Arthur.
Reply to: