On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 04:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> As the g++ package, which makes 3.3 the default, entered testing
> today, I files a report to build-essential to do this change, maybe
> this needs to be reflected in policy as well.
Does anyone have any objections to this change?
(I doubt it,
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:59:01AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > Questions for debian-{x,devel}:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artifi
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Branden Robinson writes:
> > > Questions for debian-{x,devel}:
> > >
> > > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> > > packages destined for sid so that it's harder for pa
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > Questions for debian-{x,devel}:
> >
> > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> > packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built
> > against, say, libstd
On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 02:54 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
what
dependencies of -dev packages really mean. There are at least three
possibilities, and no Policy on which is controlling:
1) just what the package actually needs to install successfully (which
is usually nothing);
2) just packa
Daniel Stone writes:
> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:54:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> > packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built
> > against, say, libstdc++3 to accidentally sneak in and start reg
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:54:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built
> against, say, libstdc++3 to accidentally sneak in and start regressing
> the C++ ABI transit
Branden Robinson writes:
> Questions for debian-{x,devel}:
>
> 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built
> against, say, libstdc++3 to accidentally sneak in and start regressing
> the C++ ABI transition
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:48:23AM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> Author: daniel
> Date: 2003-05-26 08:48:12 -0500 (Mon, 26 May 2003)
> New Revision: 69
>
> Modified:
>branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/control
> Log:
> Changed references to libstdc++5-dev to libstdc++5-dev | libstdc++-dev,
9 matches
Mail list logo
