On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:56:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > > Matthias Klose writes... > > > Matt Taggart writes: > > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice > > > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us > > > > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this. > > > AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been > > > dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet > > > frozen. > > Well I was just guessing it was no longer a release goal. > > AJ, what's the official plan? > > See the post to -devel-announce from last month. > > Basically, there aren't "release goals" per se (and haven't been since, > hmmm, hamm?). If gcc-3.0 is releasable in time (two months + however > much longer it takes to get working b-f's) it can go in, if not, it can't. > > Working on it in experimental in the meantime so you can minimise the > catastrophes even if you drop it in at the last minute is probably > worthwhile...
We may have to put it into unstable just so hppa and others can have a supported compiler. It shouldn't cause any catastrophes since it wont be used unless someone sets CC=gcc-3.0. -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'