David R. Morrison wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
[]
The only package depending on gcc4 is pdftk in 10.4/unstable
(maintainer cc'd).
[]
> I guess one question is: has there ever been a package declaring a
> dependency on the -shlibs part?
Yes, pdftk. IIRC ther
Hi,
On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:25:32AM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote:
Hi,
Given that we have now gcc42 in 1
On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:25:32AM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Given that we have now gcc42 in 10.4/unstable (and soon also in
>>> 10.4/
>>> stable), I wonder if we
Hi Dan,
On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:25:32AM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Given that we have now gcc42 in 10.4/unstable (and soon also in 10.4/
>> stable), I wonder if we should declare the gcc4 package as obsolete.
>>
>> The gcc4 package
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:25:32AM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given that we have now gcc42 in 10.4/unstable (and soon also in 10.4/
> stable), I wonder if we should declare the gcc4 package as obsolete.
>
> The gcc4 package in 10.4/unstable is based on the pre-4.2 snapshot
> 4.1.
On Jun 3, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given that we have now gcc42 in 10.4/unstable (and soon also in 10.4/
> stable), I wonder if we should declare the gcc4 package as obsolete.
>
> The gcc4 package in 10.4/unstable is based on the pre-4.2 snapshot
> 4.1.-20060617. In the
Hi,
Given that we have now gcc42 in 10.4/unstable (and soon also in 10.4/
stable), I wonder if we should declare the gcc4 package as obsolete.
The gcc4 package in 10.4/unstable is based on the pre-4.2 snapshot
4.1.-20060617. In the 10.4/stable tree, gcc4 is based on 4.0.2.
The only packag
