On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:01:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for > > hurd-i386? Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd > > like to file the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it > > updated and need to know if I should tell them gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.1.
> did somebody think about the C++ transition? I am not sure how to > handle this correctly. One approach would be to require the > libstdc++ ABI ("v3") included in the package name (and soname?) of > each C++ library. OTOH we did the switch between previous C++ > version in place as well ... That's the hassle we've been trying to avoid. If we can go straight to 3.1 (libstdc++4 package) and avoid a massive compile, I'd like that. I'm biased, BTW, in favour of in-place recompile. Aside from apt, I don't think there's any core system utils that are C++. We call the distribution unstable for a reason. Apt shouldn't be too bad, because it doesn't depend on other C++ libraries. > > We don't plan on uploading gcc-2.95 at this point. If it works > > better to switch all at once to 3.1.1 that's fine too. > gcc-2.95 definitely will be in woody+1, because gpc isn't available > for 3.0 and 3.1. Same for libg++ and chill, but these two probably > could be dropped. Our new glibc doesn't have any of the logic to handle both gcc-2.x and gcc-3.x. Is there any way to build gpc-2.95 and not build the packages for all the rest? What do the targets that are current gcc-3 do? -- One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures. -- George W. Bush -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]