On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Matthias Klose writes...
> > Matt Taggart writes:
> > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.
> > AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been
> > dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet
> > frozen.
> Well I was just guessing it was no longer a release goal.
> AJ, what's the official plan?
See the post to -devel-announce from last month.
Basically, there aren't "release goals" per se (and haven't been since,
hmmm, hamm?). If gcc-3.0 is releasable in time (two months + however
much longer it takes to get working b-f's) it can go in, if not, it can't.
Working on it in experimental in the meantime so you can minimise the
catastrophes even if you drop it in at the last minute is probably
worthwhile...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpgSo8S4W7k1.pgp
Description: PGP signature