In reference to a message from Aaron Lehmann, dated Sep 07: > Maybe this is because gcc 2.96 is not an official release of gcc and > instead is a buggy snapshot?
ia64 uses 2.96 as default as a compromise for many issues. we knew from the beginning that it's not an official release of gcc; but calling it a buggy snapshot is not quite accurate. > What would I be expected to do if one of my packages were to trigger > bugs in gcc 2.96? work around it if possible. Build-dep on gcc-3.2 if you feel it shouldn't be built with 2.96. > IMHO the IA64 port should stop using a broken compiler instead of > filing bugs on packages that expose bugs in it. we are working on moving to 3.2 as part of the sarge 3.2 transition plan. 2.96 is not any more broken than any other compiler we have in debian. randolph
