Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > If the gcc maintainers think that pointing g++ at g++-3.4 on these archs > >> > is > >> > the best option, I'm game. One disadvantage is that it wouldn't let us > >> > get > >> > feedback about what else might be wrong with g++-4.0 on those > >> > architectures, > >> > but we probably already have all the information we're going to get about > >> > the current round of toolchain packages. > >> > >> The point I'm making is that it's a *release critical* bug. The > >> relevant gcc should not be in testing on those archs. > > > > ahh, ok. so you did check that defaulting to g++-3.4 on these archs > > doesn't reveal another RC bug and we should remove g++-3.4 on these > > archs as well? > > Nope, did you when you told me to downgrade my package to use g++-3.4? > > I mean, you can't simultaneously tell all the developers to use > g++-3.4, and then insist that it's not well enough tested to use.
I didn't say that. packages which are affected by this bug should selectively use g++-3.4. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
