On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:46:15PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > THe _BEST_ example of that are buildd's that for now run etch (even > > some sarge not so long time ago) and have a sid chroot to build. Not > > keeping the CLD patch means that we break our own buildd infrastructure. > > Yay.
> No, this is not an argument. If a buildd is used to build packages for > more than one release then it needs to be updated once lenny is > released. You just need to upgrade earlier. Don't get kernels on the > buildds get security related updates anyway? You had said you would revert the patch as soon as a fixed kernel was "in lenny". Having a fixed kernel "in lenny" does not mean that lenny is released, and the buildds will not be upgraded immediately after lenny's release -- there are a lot of buildds, this is something that takes time to manage. And even if the buildds get upgraded, shipping the upstream gcc-4.3 as the default compiler for lenny means lenny would be unsuitable as a development platform for code that needs to run on any systems with kernels older than our own. That's not a good thing. It's still my opinion that if this gcc-4.3 is not going to be backwards-compatible with existing kernels for lenny, we're better off not making gcc-4.3 the default compiler on the affected archs. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]