On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Were these problems with the compiler being more strict, or with
> it being more buggy? They are both inconvenient but they aren't
I can't remember in detail. It was more a problem of changed libraries.
Actually nits but changing this in several packages is a bit of work
anyway. My fear is that other problems will come up with future
releases.
> We had 21 months between the 3.4.5 release and the current 4.2.1
> candidate, so I wouldn't quite describe the pace of change as frantic.
> Making it available now gives us plenty of time to assess its viability
> for Lenny.
Well, I antitiapted that more releases will be done. But that does not
seem to be the case. Good.
> Yes, the linux kernel team have long done this. They recommend a
> known specific compiler and other people ignore them and find any
> bugs that shake out. But for production use, bet on the recommended
> compiler.
With Windows it is worse because we can't get our hands on large parts
of the OS to debug or fix problems ;-)
> It is frozen, its just frozen in etch. If you can't just install
> those and have them work, and you really need them, then it shouldn't
> be too hard to maintain a 'forward port' in some public location.
Fair enough.
> for the next Debian release. So the package structure isn't
> quite suitable for that as is, but it should be possible to fix
> that too...
You may just change the CPU part of the name (i{4,5,6,}86-lin*,) or add
something to it. That should allow to install old versions. My build
scripts will cope fine with that.
> Are you still actually having problems with 4.2.1, or just
> hoping (as we all do) that they won't be repeated too often?
The latter.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
