This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: gcc-3.2 C++ ABI and packaging c++ libraries [was Re: [ITP]: BerkeleyDB v3.1]
Gareth Pearce wrote:
I don't know what's so damned funny, because he never *really* stated
his intentions. I don't need to read the archives, because I assure you
I have been following the discussion. He made a reference to the gcc
announcment and said "maybe we should wait", but that doesn't say much
to me. How long are we going to wait? Are we going to go with the
initial release of gcc-3.2 or will we wait until gcc-3.2.1? Further
discussion was somewhat debateble, but certainly it was not clear or
concise on where he stands. Perhaps the message he stated this in never
got delivered to my mailbox...
B)If possible, I'd like to know what the tentative plan might be for the
gcc-3.x release. Are we going to stick with gcc-3.1.1 for awhile or are
we going to dive into gcc-3.2? In either case, roughly when would you
like to have the new gcc go gold?
'read the message list archives' *snicker*
Even you are expressing some reservation on saying what will happen, so
again, my point was to recieve further clarification from management so
that I can make "informed" decisions regarding my packages.
I am pretty sure that decision looked pretty strong on Chris waiting for the
branch re-naming/abi fix checkin and releasing 3.2 instead of 3.1.1 ever
going past test. Should be sometime next week hopefully ... since the gcc
types said they were going to do the branch renaming as soon as 3.1.1 was
out ... and that is RSN. (ummm ofcourse i might of missed italready , I
delete most of the gcc mail without reading it)