On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:29:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
Good point, moreover it might speed up the transition process. And comparing the speed of development of gcc and kde, there'd been no problem adding kde 3.0 to sid/woody and leave the transition problems to 3.1 or even 4.x. Bjoern
