2010/8/20, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org>: > Arthur Loiret <aloi...@debian.org> writes: >> Are you saying that we are developing an operating system which is not >> suitable for active development, or that it shouldn't be made suitable >> for active development? > > I think he meant that stable is not the place for active development of > the operating system and I agree with that. > > Like I said earlier, the presence of gcc-4.5 in Squeeze does not bother > me. What bothers me is replacing some core libraries like libgcc1 and > libstdc++ with versions from gcc-4.5.
There is no regression in the runtime libraries tests, and they run very fine with our current testing distribution. You can try by yourself if you don't believe so. >> Also, although I really don't know how common this is, I know people >> who use stable for active development, by obligation. > > OK, then they use the stable compiler, by obligation :) > > gcc-4.5 is not stable: it is in experimental and has not even reached > unstable yet. > > gcc-4.4 is stable. Upstream GCC version 4.5.0 has been released in mid april, and GCC 4.5.1 has less serious regression than GCC 4.4.4. Please explain why do you think gcc-4.5 isn't stable. >> Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users? > > Right: gcc-4.5 is "nice to have", maybe even "very, very nice to have", > but it does not fix any RC bugs and _might_ introduce some due to > replacing important libraries from gcc-4.4. So, I support the release > manager's decision not to include gcc-4.5 in Squeeze. Same thing again: it has been tested and works well. I understand your bad feeling about this, but it has no reason to be. Arthur. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=xohjlyjj6tk=kvagpwuhcftpzw1mscxs-e...@mail.gmail.com
