Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 19 October 2002 4:48 pm, Noel Koethe wrote: > >> >> We will still wait for the gcc 3.2 transition for unstable. > > I know that is what is happening - what nobody has answered completely yet is > WHY you can't put 2.95 compiled packages in to unstable at first and then > follow up later with 3.2 compiled versions (with the different names if that > is what the plan entails - or just later versions if not).
Or, my variation of the question: Why not just build-depend on g++-3.2, build the packages and their dependencies (anything other than Qt?) explicitly with g++-3.2, and upload to unstable or experimental. Once the transition has taken place, revert to just building with g++ and everything should work out fine. I think there are problems with binutils and gcc-3.2 on certain arches which would break KDE on those arches, but it would probably be better in the long run to live with those problems for now. -- People said I was dumb, but I proved them!
