Re: gcc 3.1.1 to 3.2 transition

2002-07-29 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > Daniel, >What about the libgcc_s.so.1? I assume we are assured of compatibility > in using a libgcc_s.so.1 from gcc 3.2 with binaries built with gcc 3.1.1 > then? Yes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mell

Re: gcc 3.1.1 to 3.2 transition

2002-07-29 Thread Jack Howarth
Daniel, What about the libgcc_s.so.1? I assume we are assured of compatibility in using a libgcc_s.so.1 from gcc 3.2 with binaries built with gcc 3.1.1 then? Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL

Re: gcc 3.1.1 to 3.2 transition

2002-07-29 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:45:30PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > Daniel, >Well if gcc 3.1.1 instantly disappears the moment gcc 3.2 hits the pool, > won't that force openoffice/stl to deinstall on a dist-upgrade? It would > nicer if we allows folks a grace period for their apps to get rebuilt >

Re: gcc 3.1.1 to 3.2 transition

2002-07-29 Thread Jack Howarth
Daniel, Well if gcc 3.1.1 instantly disappears the moment gcc 3.2 hits the pool, won't that force openoffice/stl to deinstall on a dist-upgrade? It would nicer if we allows folks a grace period for their apps to get rebuilt before yanking the supporting libs they need.

Re: gcc 3.1.1 to 3.2 transition

2002-07-29 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:29:25PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > I noticed that the new gcc-3.1_3.1.1ds3-1 changelog notes that > gcc 3.1.1 will go away when 3.2 arrives. Do we plan on having a period > of time (say a month) where both 3.1.1 and 3.2 will co-exist in the > sid pool? That might b