On dim., 2012-05-27 at 00:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 23:51 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > Svante, > > > > am Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:58:10PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > > On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 19:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:56:15 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > > sorry, thinko. I did mean End of May. > > > > So we're at the end of May. Can we have that revert now, or do I need > > > > to NMU? > > > Stop nagging about the default gcc compiler for wheezy. Right now it is > > > gcc-4.7, and problems will be resolved in due time for the release. > > > > sorry to annoy you but nagging about problems of the upcoming release is > > actually our job description. So no, we won't stop just because you're telling > > us to, just with solid reasons instead of handwaving about it all going away > > because you say so. It's a hell lot of work it's causing. Nobody's saying > > anything against having gcc-4.7 as an option. > > Philipp, > > With all due respect, So far I have not seen any bug report causing the > gcc-4.7 as default compiler being serious enough to make it reverted. > Name the problematic bugs then, please. And, where is the big problem, > please explain? You mean something like http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.7;users=debian-gcc@lists.debian.org ? > Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part