On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:45:46AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > # -gcc (2.95.2-20 to -) > * Maintainer: Debian GCC maintainers > * Boss says I shouldn't remove gcc > * Not considered > This is still in update_excuses, although the package is removed in > unstable.
Yes, the exception is hardcoded:
if src == "gcc":
exc.addhtml("Boss says I shouldn't remove %s" % (src))
okay = 0
It's providing libg++2.8.1.3 and libstdc++2.10; libg++2.8.1.3-glibc2.2
and libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 is what everything in Debian uses now; those
two libs are only useful for compatability with (reasonably old) third
party C++ stuff.
This shouldn't affect gcc maintentance *at all*, unless you want a gcc
source package (instead of gcc-defaults/gcc-X.Y), or want to provide
those libs.
> As I see both libgcc1 built from 3.2 and 3.3 in the package pool, is
> it possible to move the current 3.2 packages to testing? the missing
> binutils architectures are uploaded. 3.2 on m68k is building, but not
> sure if it finishes tomorrow. Maybe it can go in later.
] stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/m68k-linux/bin/ -DIN_GCC -O2 -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wtraditional
-pedantic -Wno-long-long -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/gcc
-I../../src/gcc/. -I../../src/gcc/config -I../../src/gcc/../include -c
insn-recog.c \
] -o insn-recog.o
] insn-recog.c: In function `recog_7':
] insn-recog.c:9893: internal error: Illegal instruction
] Please submit a full bug report,
] with preprocessed source if appropriate.
- Sun 13 Apr 2003 20:10: maybe-failed
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=gcc-3.2&ver=1%3A3.2.3ds7-0pre8&arch=m68k&stamp=1050279027&file=log&as=raw
Do you guys know what you're doing about gcc 3.2 v gcc 3.3, or is
everything still all confused about it?
I don't really know gcc well enough to comment, but if it's what you
need and want, I'm happy to say "focus on 3.3 for sarge", and work
from there. Whatever happens, we do need to have a working toolchain
for all architectures in testing and unstable (and stable of course)
as continually as possible; if 3.3 is the best way of achieving that,
that's great.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgpROevWIuocq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
