Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > If the gcc maintainers think that pointing g++ at g++-3.4 on these archs is >> > the best option, I'm game. One disadvantage is that it wouldn't let us get >> > feedback about what else might be wrong with g++-4.0 on those >> > architectures, >> > but we probably already have all the information we're going to get about >> > the current round of toolchain packages. >> >> The point I'm making is that it's a *release critical* bug. The >> relevant gcc should not be in testing on those archs. > > ahh, ok. so you did check that defaulting to g++-3.4 on these archs > doesn't reveal another RC bug and we should remove g++-3.4 on these > archs as well?
Nope, did you when you told me to downgrade my package to use g++-3.4? I mean, you can't simultaneously tell all the developers to use g++-3.4, and then insist that it's not well enough tested to use. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
