(re ajt's comments to bug #101878)
gcc-defaults doesn't build packages with epochs by default, so if we can
keep it that way we'll be more consistent with the other architectures.
But I think we just want to get something into the archive that works,
so whatever we can agree to .
cc'ing the
I think our current gcc 2.95.4 is stable enough, and sufficiently better
than the 2.95.2 in potato, that we should consider making new packages to go
into 2.2r4 or whatever the next version is going to be. I guess this should
be straightforward enough to achieve.
Anybody object to this? If
Philip Blundell writes:
I think our current gcc 2.95.4 is stable enough, and sufficiently better
than the 2.95.2 in potato, that we should consider making new packages to go
into 2.2r4 or whatever the next version is going to be. I guess this should
be straightforward enough to achieve.
Chris, any support in ld needed?
laurent bonnaud writes:
Package: g++-3.0
Version: 1:3.0-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
according to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#known, it would seem to be a good
idea to compile g++-3.0 with the --use-cxa-atexit switch:
Global destructors are
the current 2.95.4 doesn't builf on s390, but 2.95.3, so it might be
necessary to add a reverse-diff (for woody as well).
Is there any bug open for this? I couldn't find one from a quick look at the
lists for gcc and gcc-2.95. In any case I don't think we have to worry about
it for potato --
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 02:47:51PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Chris, any support in ld needed?
laurent bonnaud writes:
Package: g++-3.0
Version: 1:3.0-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
according to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#known, it would seem to be a good
idea to
I sincerely doubt that this will ever get past the Release Manager
unless you have a very good, very specific reason. I recommend talking
to him before spending your time.
I think it's worth making the packages even if the Release Manager (who is
that for potato these days, anyway?) won't
Submitter-Id: net-debian
Originator:Jeff Bailey
Organization:
Confidential: no
Synopsis: gcc-3.0 doesn't build shared C++ library on i386-pc-gnu
Severity: serious
Priority: medium
Category: c++
Class: sw-bug
Release: 3.0 20010426 (Debian prerelease)
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:23:17PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
I sincerely doubt that this will ever get past the Release Manager
unless you have a very good, very specific reason. I recommend talking
to him before spending your time.
I think it's worth making the packages even if the
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 12:00:36AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Ok to enable -fuse-cxa-atexit as default? According to Laurents
citations this should be safe for Linux glibc. Safe for the Hurd as
well?
Should be. Might want to run it through a testsuite just to be sure,
of course.
--
Daniel
10 matches
Mail list logo
