|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > July 2005 > GCC version change / C++ ABI change
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
GCC version change / C++ ABI change
|
|
| Matthias Klose 2005-07-03, 5:54 pm |
| This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
(for g77 and gpc to 3.4, these are not supported in 4.0) on all
architectures. The GCC-4.0 version used is taken from the GCC 4.0
branch (something that will likely become the 4.0.1 release candidate
3). The switch to 4.0 (instead to 3.4) is preferred by the Debian GCC
maintainers and the port maintainers (modulo those I forgot to ask,
please speak up now). Looking forward at the etch release schedule, it
is unlikely that 3.4 is still supported upstream in 18 months. 4.0 is
currently used on by other distributions as a system compiler to build
most of the distribution. We will keep at least the GCC-3.4 C and
Fortran77 compilers for the etch release.
The C++ ABI change was already announced at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-rele...4/msg00153.html
There has been a concern about re-renaming library packages
libfoo1c102 back to libfoo1, because this might break third party
packages on systems, that are directly upgraded from potato to etch.
I don't know any of these, but if a package maintainer thinks it's
worth supporting these packages and upgrades, please rename the
package to libfoo1c2. In this case you have to keep the libfooc1
conflict/replace and add the libfoo1c102 conflict/replace.
The timeframe for the change is as follows:
- wait for gcc-4.0 4.0.0-11 in the archives on all architectures,
for sparc and hppa we require the -12 version (Looking at the
buildds, that probably will be 2005-07-0[56]).
- wait for gcc-3.4 3.4.4-3 in the archives on all architectures,
although 3.4.4-4 would be preferred (same estimates as for
gcc-4.0).
- an upgrade to binutils-2.16.1 is a nice to have, currently needs
some more work on mips/mipsel.
- upgrade gcc-defaults to point to the 4.0 compiler drivers.
- upgrade build-essential to version 11 to depend on the new
defaults.
PLEASE do NOT start uploading packages before a new gcc-defaults and
build-essential are in the archives.
After these are in the archives: The following can happen in parallel:
- Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any other C++
library besides libstdc++.
- Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend on any
other C++ library besides libstdc++.
All other applications and libraries have to wait, until the C++
related build dependencies are available for the new ABI. It's
important to adjust the build dependencies and the dependencies of the
-dev packages to the first version of a package, which is built for
the new ABI.
Please don't add build dependencies on g++ (>= 4.0) or build-essential
(>= 11). The buildd maintainers will take care, that the buildd's run
with build-essential-11 after it's in the archives.
I'm updating the above mentioned text for the C++ ABI until Wednesday
or Thursday. Feedback and additions are welcome.
For the time until all C++ libraries are converted, I'm proposing the
following NMU policy:
- 0-day NMU's allowed for all C++ library packages, which are uploaded
after the g++ default change, and are completely ignoring the C++
ABI change.
- 2-day NMU's allowed for all C++ library packages, which are uploaded
after the g++ default change, with serious bugs in the packaging
(i.e. wrong package name in shlibs file, missing conflicts/replaces,
library package without a library, etc).
- 5-day NMU for all C++ library packages, which can be converted, but
are left alone.
Matthias
PS: Some of you know, that Ubuntu did the C++ ABI change at the start
of it's release cycle. For most if the libraries, patches are
available. These have to be adjusted, at least for the version
numbers. Some Debian developers think these patches are too simple,
and it doesn't make sense to submit those to the Debian BTS. All
others may have a look at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/CxxLibraryList
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Junichi Uekawa 2005-07-03, 8:47 pm |
| Hi,
> This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
seems to indicate thus:
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel...0701_316.html#7
regards,
junichi
--
Junichi Uekawa, Debian Developer http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/
183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5 CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2005-07-03, 8:47 pm |
| Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
> I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
> seems to indicate thus:
> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel...0701_316.html#7
Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthias Klose 2005-07-03, 8:47 pm |
| Junichi Uekawa writes:
> Hi,
>
>
> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Otavio Salvador 2005-07-03, 8:47 pm |
| Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> writes:
> Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>
> Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 03:07:23AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Junichi Uekawa writes:
>
> No, you can still build using gcc-3.3.
I have added this as a build dependancy for all the kernel images that
are in the kernel team's svn tree, that is alpha, hppa, i386, ia64,
mips, powerpc, s390 and sparc. This should appear in their respective
next releases. I have CCed the uploaders of these packages, if you are
one of those people and have a reason to undo this change, please do so,
I have no ambitions to tread on your toes.
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Marc Haber 2005-07-04, 7:50 am |
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
kernel developers.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2005-07-04, 7:50 am |
| Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> writes:
>
>
> But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?
Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
> Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included
in etch. My understanding is that it is needed for some arches,
and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in
many cases is a valid choice over 2.6. That said, I think its a
discussion that should be had and I am more than happy not to have
to maintain 2.4 for etch if there is no need for it.
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2005-07-04, 7:50 am |
| Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
The gcc version recommended by upstream is still 2.95. :-)
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2005-07-04, 7:50 am |
| Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included
> in etch.
I don't think gcc-4.0 is a hard requirement for that. We still have
even gcc-2.95 in the archive, and a gcc 3.3/3.4 version is likely to
be around for etch.
> My understanding is that it is needed for some arches,
> and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in
> many cases is a valid choice over 2.6.
I just wanted to hint that upstream is more interested in making 2.6 a
more valid choice instead of sinking time in a compiler upgrade for 2.4
which provides little benefit for the kernel.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:44:23AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Horms wrote:
>
> I don't think gcc-4.0 is a hard requirement for that. We still have
> even gcc-2.95 in the archive, and a gcc 3.3/3.4 version is likely to
> be around for etch.
Sure. I don't think there is any immediate threat that we won't be able
to compile 2.4 in etch. For i386 at least, we have been using gcc-3.3 to
compile 2.4.27, and from a casual glance that seems to be the case in
other arches. I am not sure about 3.4's ability to compile 2.4.27, but
it seems unlikely to me that all of the gcc versions you mention above
will be omitted from etch.
>
> I just wanted to hint that upstream is more interested in making 2.6 a
> more valid choice instead of sinking time in a compiler upgrade for 2.4
> which provides little benefit for the kernel.
Yes. I understand from a recent lkml post that there is
absolutely no interest in making 2.4 compile with gcc 4.
And yes, discussing 2.4's incusion (or not) in etch isn't directly
related to this discussion about gcc versions at all. I just wanted
to bring it to the table so people can mull over it a bit.
Though I might have been better off making a separate post.
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| maximilian attems 2005-07-04, 7:50 am |
| On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
2.2 went also in deep freeze for 2.4?
what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?
--
maks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>
> 2.2 went also in deep freeze for 2.4?
> what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
> that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?
It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
about it in my books.
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jon Dowland 2005-07-04, 7:50 am |
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
>
> It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
> both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
> about it in my books.
Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
2.4 is still being looked after though, isn't it? Maybe the hackers
don't care about it from a features perspective, I'd be suprised if
there weren't people working on security problems as and when they
happen.
As for it not compiling with GCC 4.x, is there really any good reason to
make it do so? The lifetime of the 2.4 kernel is undoubtably less than
the GCC 3.x branch in distributions. Any attempt to port 2.4 to 4.0
would run the risk of introducing problems for no gain.
--
Jon Dowland
http://jon.dowland.name/
PGP fingerprint: 7032F238
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
>
> Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
>
> 2.4 is still being looked after though, isn't it? Maybe the hackers
> don't care about it from a features perspective, I'd be suprised if
> there weren't people working on security problems as and when they
> happen.
2.4 is being maintained in the big wide world. Its being looked after
for security bugs. And it is being maintained upstram. Almost all of
the development focus upstream is on 2.6, and almost all shiny new
feature are going into 2.6 rather than 2.4. But 2.4 is not dead
upstream.
> As for it not compiling with GCC 4.x, is there really any good reason to
> make it do so? The lifetime of the 2.4 kernel is undoubtably less than
> the GCC 3.x branch in distributions. Any attempt to port 2.4 to 4.0
> would run the risk of introducing problems for no gain.
I don't believe it is worth while to do so - we can always compile
it with gcc 3.x, and as you point out, that isn't a compiler
that is going away in a hurry. Furthermore, I don't think there
are any efforts going into making this happen.
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Elimar Riesebieter 2005-07-05, 5:57 pm |
| On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Matthias Klose told:
> This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
Do we have to put
CFLAGS += -Wno-pointer-sign
by default to each rules file?
Elimar
--
Never make anything simple and efficient when a way
can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Brian May 2005-07-05, 8:48 pm |
| >>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
Matthias> - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
Matthias> other C++ library besides libstdc++.
Matthias> - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
Matthias> on any other C++ library besides libstdc++.
Presumably applications which are built using the same source as a
library that meets the 2nd criteria should also be built. Otherwise we
wouldn't get anywhere...
I am specifically thinking of dar here, it contains a library and an
application that uses this library in the one source, by the above
criteria I could rebuild the library but not the application, which
seems pointless.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthias Klose 2005-07-05, 8:48 pm |
| Brian May writes:
>
> Matthias> - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
> Matthias> other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Matthias> - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
> Matthias> on any other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Presumably applications which are built using the same source as a
> library that meets the 2nd criteria should also be built. Otherwise we
> wouldn't get anywhere...
>
> I am specifically thinking of dar here, it contains a library and an
> application that uses this library in the one source, by the above
> criteria I could rebuild the library but not the application, which
> seems pointless.
yes, of course. thanks for the clarification.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-07-05, 8:48 pm |
| Brian May <bam@debian.org> writes:
>
> Matthias> - Rebuild C++ applications, which do not depend on any
> Matthias> other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Matthias> - Rename and rebuild C++ libraries, which do not depend
> Matthias> on any other C++ library besides libstdc++.
>
> Presumably applications which are built using the same source as a
> library that meets the 2nd criteria should also be built. Otherwise we
> wouldn't get anywhere...
>
> I am specifically thinking of dar here, it contains a library and an
> application that uses this library in the one source, by the above
> criteria I could rebuild the library but not the application, which
> seems pointless.
> --
> Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?
If the library is only used by dar then link it in static. If it is
used by other binaries too then you prevent having multiple versions
of the lib installed.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Peter Samuelson 2005-07-05, 8:48 pm |
|
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Isn't that a policy violation in itself already?
He said the same *source*, not the same binary package.
| |
| Theodore Ts'o 2005-07-06, 7:53 am |
| On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>
> Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
Sort of. 2.4 kernels have generally been patched by most
distributions to the point where they are hardly recognizeable. Both
Red Hat and SuSE have backported _so_ many 2.5/2.6 features into their
"2.4 kernel" that you generally can't boot a kernel.org 2.4 kernel on
their systems. Since all of the distributions have forked so far from
the mainstream kernel, and most of the kernel developers are focusing
on 2.6, most 2.4 maintenance takes place within the various
distributions. It's therefore up to the Debian kernel team whether
they feel like supporting 2.4 or not.
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
| On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:52:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>
> Sort of. 2.4 kernels have generally been patched by most
> distributions to the point where they are hardly recognizeable. Both
> Red Hat and SuSE have backported _so_ many 2.5/2.6 features into their
> "2.4 kernel" that you generally can't boot a kernel.org 2.4 kernel on
> their systems. Since all of the distributions have forked so far from
> the mainstream kernel, and most of the kernel developers are focusing
> on 2.6, most 2.4 maintenance takes place within the various
> distributions. It's therefore up to the Debian kernel team whether
> they feel like supporting 2.4 or not.
Hi Ted,
Thanks for your remarks. I think the current sentiment of the kernel
team is that we'd rather not if we don't have to. With your comments in
mind, this probably boils down to how many architectures need it, by
which I mean, how many architecures can't use 2.6. And how solid 2.6 is.
My personal feeling - as the person most likely to maintain a 2.4 kernel -
is that in the case of the former, its probably too few to warant
supporting 2.4 across the board. And in the case of the latter, by the
time etch comes out, 2.6 will have progressed and along the way should
become more and more solid. So in all respects it would seem better to
focus on 2.6.
--
Horms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2005-07-06, 5:53 pm |
| Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>
> He said the same *source*, not the same binary package.
Sorry, my bad. Must learn to read more carefully.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian von Bidder 2005-07-11, 5:54 pm |
| | |
| Roger Leigh 2005-07-11, 5:54 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch> writes:
> On Monday 04 July 2005 11.51, Horms wrote:
>
> I'm quite confident that the release team and/or gcc maintainers will agree
> that 'is needed to compile 2.4 kernels' is a big enough reason to keep some
> gcc version around if Debian gets to the point to decide which old gcc
> versions should be shipped or dropped.
We even have GCC 2.7.2 in unstable (gcc272). Does anyone actually use
this anymore, or could it be removed for etch?
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFC0tQSVcFcaSW/ uEgRAltwAJ445XH8bW9IzVFPbbcJs3bY8MaUXgCf
a6Ap
LKHHf7hJox+kn8w3Ds5bOI4=
=LvYy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian von Bidder 2005-07-12, 5:57 pm |
| | |
| Nikita V. Youshchenko 2005-07-12, 5:57 pm |
|
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch> writes:
>
>
> We even have GCC 2.7.2 in unstable (gcc272). Does anyone actually use
> this anymore, or could it be removed for etch?
Not sure about 2.7.2, but 2.95 is definitly usable - at least to compile
code that has problems with later versions. I hope it will not be removed
anytime soon.
And 2.95 is ok to build both kernel 2.4 and 2.2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Francesco P. Lovergine 2005-07-13, 2:48 am |
| On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:27:27PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
> Not sure about 2.7.2, but 2.95 is definitly usable - at least to compile
> code that has problems with later versions. I hope it will not be removed
> anytime soon.
>
> And 2.95 is ok to build both kernel 2.4 and 2.2
>
Eh, deja vu. We have yet libc5 and its toolchain around just to allow
use and compilation of ancient code. When I asked for revoming due
to an old grave bug, people answered almost the same: it's yet useful.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|