Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I am maintaining a package that fails to build on alpha, hppa, and s390.
> It appears that the problem is that those architectures use gcc/g++-3.0,
> rather than 2.95, as the default compiler. The source would need to be
> modified (not hugely, perhaps) to compile with gcc/g++-3.0.
>
> This package also uses the KDE2/Qt2 environment, which I know is due to
> be replaced in unstable. Upstream has written a version that is ported
> over to KDE3/Qt3, and I believe, gcc/g++-3.0.
>
> I understand that KDE3 is being held up from moving into sid because of
> hold-ups with changing to gcc-3.x. Am I correct in this?
Yep.
> So now I have, I guess, two questions. Does anyone know how long it is
> expected to be before the new default compiler and KDE3 move into sid?
> If it is expected to be relatively shortly, I will concentrate my
> efforts on the new version.
The Qt3 maintainer told me yesterday that he plans to upload Qt3.1
compiled with g++-3.2 within a week. I assume KDE 3 would follow
shortly.
> The other question is, is this acceptable - that is, can I allow a build
> failure on three architectures for a few {weeks,days}, or is that just
> deemed too lazy? My personal feeling is that if the new compiler and
> KDE3 aren't due in sid within about two weeks, I should go ahead and try
> to deal with the source changes. This involves a fair amount of
> research for me, so I wanted to ask other's opinions before I started
> mucking about with it.
You could just change the Architecture: field in the control file to not
attempt to build on the broken arches, for now.
--
People said I was dumb, but I proved them!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
