2013/12/20 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>: > - The solution of "gcc-default (>= 4.8) | gcc-4.8" would have been > nice if not because of the problem with buildds (I thought that it > would already have been fixed, it's an old problem). But the contrary > is not so nice because when GCC 4.9 becomes the default (it can happen > before summer, unless Release Managers want 4.8 for jessie) the > package will need an update just because of its dependencies; while > there's sometimes more than a year [1] between updates to OGRE package > and for good reasons (need to go through NEW queue due to changes in > names of binary packages; tax on the infrastructure; etc). > > [1] > [2013-09-04] Accepted 1.8.0+dfsg1-5 in unstable (low) (Manuel A. > Fernandez Montecelo) > [2013-08-01] Accepted 1.8.0+dfsg1-4 in unstable (low) (Manuel A. > Fernandez Montecelo)
Mmmm, I meant this one (not a full year, but you get the idea): [2013-08-01] Accepted 1.8.0+dfsg1-4 in unstable (low) (Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo) [2012-11-13] Accepted 1.8.0+dfsg1-3 in unstable (low) (Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo) So, any opinion about my previous reasoning, for or against? Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
