In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes: >On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:54:10PM +0000, Philip Blundell wrote: >> G++ 2.95 is pretty broken in its own right. Just because it won't compile >> something doesn't necessarily mean that the source is at fault. I wouldn't >> regard it as unreasonable for C++ programs to require 3.0 these days. > >I don't think it is unreasonable in Debian to require that programs work >with the default toolset available for the arch.
I disagree. I think we should just take the stance that packages requiring gcc-3.0 won't necessarily get built on all architectures for woody. >2) There are HOWTO's on creating "generic" C++ for gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0, >so it compiles on both. Sure, but upstream maintainers are not necessarily going to want to jump through these hoops. p.
