tag 473647 + wontfix thanks - well, how long should a compiler be kept as a legacy compiler? - set the package on hold if you upgrade, and the package is kept installed (or install it from etch). - having libg2c0 on hppa did block removal of gcc-4.0
Kevin Mitchell writes: > Package: gcc-3.4 > Version: 3.4.6-7 > Severity: important > > > I recently had trouble when upgrading to the latest debian patch of > legacy gcc-3.4-7. Apparently, there is no corresponding g77-3.4-7 as > would seem to be confirmed by the changelog. > > * Don't build the following languages from the gcc-3.4 sources: > - Pascal, now based on the GCC-4.1 sources. > - Fortran 77, now superseded by GFortran built from the GCC-4.3 sources. > - C++, having a different ABI for g++ (>= 4.1) in lenny on four > release architectures. > - C for 64bit hppa, kernel builds use gcc-4.x. > > I'm not quite sure I see why having more recent versions justifies > removing these languages from the legacy package. It is there for > backwards compatibility is it not? I fully agree that we need to get > FORTRAN out of the stone age, but it would be nice to at least have the > old version available to ease the transition. This should especially not > be a problem since there's no collision between the exectuable names > (g77 vs. gfortran). Even if we were to do something like symlink g77 to > gfortran in the long run, couldn't this be handled by /etc/alternatives? No, IMO it is a mistake to handle compilers with different ABI's and API's with alternatives. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
