-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 31 Dec 2002 7:57 am, Ben Burton wrote: > > Thus, again with the exception of Karolina's debs, the only work that is > in theory duplicated is the actual compilation which really *has* to be > duplicated since the various archives are built in different > environments (woody vs sid, gcc-2.95 vs gcc-3.2, etc). >
I would also like to add my thanks to everyone who is producing these debs. I have an environment on my machine to build them too - very manually and relying on the work everyone else in terms of the debian directory. Even so, I took about a month to get a complete set of gcc3.2 compiled debs. I gave up when then update to qt went back to be 2.95 compiled and the Ralf's started re-appearing at kde.org. [And I don't have access to sufficient outside web enabled disk space to publish mine] I did so out of the pure frustration of not seeing them in the debian unstable archive. What I STILL don't understand is why a gcc 2.95 set of debs could not have been added to unstable (presumable the 3.0.x ones) sometime ago - so that by now they had at least flowed through to sarge. Reading the plan for gcc 3.2 transition - this could just as well been applied to libarts and kdelibs so as to have a smooth update when the decision to throw the switch was _eventually_ made. Where is the switch to gcc3.2 discussed? I am subscribed to debian-devel, and have looked in the archive in debian-gcc but there is not much there. There seems to be very little discussion here too. - -- Alan Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+EZekuFHxcV2FFoIRAmTXAJ0WecOTRaRFMJhDdsk1NKs6uIoUJQCePjD9 VgAXA8Me/5BH8lz2ylknajM= =AwgQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
