Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
Jeff Bailey writes: On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Considering the confusion of having gcc272 as default C compiler and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all architectures at once, if that's possible. So maybe it's reasonable to: upload 3.1 after the woody release, make it the default with the gcc-3.1.1 release? Is this too late for the hurd? 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 ... Note that we haven't got a gcc in the archive yet, so if you choose 3.1, we probably won't build 3.0 officially. There seems to be agreement to drop 3.0 for many architectures. 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. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
`hurd-i386' has just completed an ABI bump. We've been very careful to keep back packages that depend on libstdc++, as I had heard that there's some compatability problems. Do you object if we declare gcc-3.1 to be our default compiler as soon as you upload? I just read the archives of this list and it looks like you folks are ready to go as soon as upstream releases. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- 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]
Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
Jeff Bailey writes: `hurd-i386' has just completed an ABI bump. We've been very careful to keep back packages that depend on libstdc++, as I had heard that there's some compatability problems. Do you object if we declare gcc-3.1 to be our default compiler as soon as you upload? I just read the archives of this list and it looks like you folks are ready to go as soon as upstream releases. I assume Anthony will kill me, if I upload 3.1 before the woody release (or at least as long as all packages for woody need to go to unstable first). The packages are usable (http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc), but would replace some gcc-3.0 packages. Considering the confusion of having gcc272 as default C compiler and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all architectures at once, if that's possible. So maybe it's reasonable to: upload 3.1 after the woody release, make it the default with the gcc-3.1.1 release? Is this too late for the hurd? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 04:03:15PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: Hmm. We've already switched to gcc-3.0 (and so far haven't built a gcc-2.95 - Our glibc doesn't contain the magic to make everything friendly between the two) for all the C stuff. I wasn't sure if since we had a clean slate (There are no packages in Debian for us that are older than a week or so) if we should use gcc-3.1 right away. I'm definetly not pushing for anything before Woody (eg. We haven't filed a request to get gcc-defaults updated, because we don't want to risk any accidental problems). I'm just trying to figure out what's best to plan for. If you prefer that we stick to gcc-3.0 and g++-3.0, then I will let the buildd go ahead and build the C++ packages. If you say that I can switch to g++-3.1 in 2 or 3 weeks, then I will hold off until then on any C++ packages. We also don't mind being a test bed, since we're not a released arch, our users are used to some hardships. =) Well, I for one would like to see you wait for GCC 3.1. I'm with Matthias; I'd like to see a complete switchover post-woody, for all architectures. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.1 on hurd-i386
On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 16:44, Jeff Bailey wrote: Do you folks have pre-release gcc-3.1 debs that we can use for testing (and possibly building...)? A quick google search doesn't seem to show any recent discussion on this, so if there's somewhere better I need to look, please let me know. There are gcc-snapshot packages in the archive. I don't know offhand if those are snapshots from the trunk or the 3.1 branch, but it probably doesn't make a lot of difference just at the moment. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
