Arthur Loiret <aloi...@debian.org> writes: > Hello, > > 2010/8/20, Neil McGovern <ne...@debian.org>: >> I don't think that stable is the place for doing active development. > > Are you saying that we are developing an operating system which is not > suitable for active development, or that it shouldn't be made suitable > for active development?
I think he meant that stable is not the place for active development of the operating system and I agree with that. Like I said earlier, the presence of gcc-4.5 in Squeeze does not bother me. What bothers me is replacing some core libraries like libgcc1 and libstdc++ with versions from gcc-4.5. If the plan was to install the gcc-4.5 libraries alongside the gcc-4.4 libraries, I would have no objection. But this would require changing the sonames of the gcc-4.5 libraries, so is probably not desirable. > Also, although I really don't know how common this is, I know people > who use stable for active development, by obligation. OK, then they use the stable compiler, by obligation :) gcc-4.5 is not stable: it is in experimental and has not even reached unstable yet. gcc-4.4 is stable. > Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users? Right: gcc-4.5 is "nice to have", maybe even "very, very nice to have", but it does not fix any RC bugs and _might_ introduce some due to replacing important libraries from gcc-4.4. So, I support the release manager's decision not to include gcc-4.5 in Squeeze. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aaohrni4....@ludovic-brenta.org