gcc-3.2 C++ ABI and packaging c++ libraries [was Re: [ITP]: Berkeley DB v3.1]

[Nicholas Wourms]

Gareth Pearce wrote:

>
>>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*
>
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...

>
>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)
>
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.

Cheers,
Nicholas