On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 01:58:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Huh? As in "Build-Depends: gcc (= 2.7.2)" ? How's this different to > Bug#41232? Or, rather, how is Bug#41232 lacking?
Bug#41232 is good, though [to take the example from the most recent message], I still don't see that specifying altgcc is going to buy you a lot. [Even if there were altgcc packages for non-intel machines, how do you indicate that the compiler is to be used without including stuff like PATH=/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/bin:$PATH...?] > > But what you're doing right now: optimizing a hack... That's more > > likely to get in the way of the long term solution than anything else. > > No, it's not. It's a clean tidy way of letting a builder say "Yes I > want debug information" or "No I don't want debug information" rather > than always trying to give em both. > > Having the builder specify whether ey wants debug information and the > maintainer deciding in advance whether it's possible and reasonable > to honour that request seems a much more reliable way than having the > builder mess around with the build process without actually understanding > what's going on (ie, automatically). Well, ok. Since Bug#41232 is looks most of the way defined, and since Bug#43787 doesn't seem to step on it, I withdraw my objection. -- Raul
