[11:11] <doko> hi fabbione
[11:12] <fabbione> hi doko
[11:21] <fabbione> COW
[11:21] <fabbione> did you upload something?
[11:25] <doko> yes, remains of C++ stuff
[04:11] <tonyms> I'm building the binutils package from the package source on Breezy, and notice binutils-2.16.1 has a gcc build-dep.  Could this build-dep not be on c-compiler instead?  I already had gcc-3.4 installed; would that not have been sufficient?
[04:12] <tonyms> Thanks!  Sorry if this question is overly clueless or in the wrong channel, I'm new to Ubuntu...
[04:45] <jbailey> tonyms: Usually iif there's a specific build-dep it's done for a reason.
[04:45] <jbailey> tonyms: Often miscompile problems.
[05:29] <tonyms> jbailey: depending on gcc (>= 2.95.2) isn't very specific, though.  libtool, say, build-deps on gcc | c-compiler.  Is there any reason this doesn't apply to binutils?  It's annoying to have to install gcc-4.0 when a perfectly viable C compiler already exists on the system.
[05:29] <jbailey> tonyms: libtool is actually buggy there.  IIRC, it's against policy to depend on thing covered by build-essential if there's no versioned dependancy
[05:30] <jbailey> In this case, gcc-2.95's dependancy could probably be dropped.
[05:30] <jbailey> I don't see anything in there that forces gcc-4.0
[05:30] <jbailey> Aside from regular build-essential fun
[05:46] <tonyms> Cheers!  Not sure I like the idea of build-essential, though :)  It always uses the system compiler (gcc), which means programs whose codebase hasn't been upgraded so gcc-4.0 can handle it are hosed on my machine.
[05:52] <jbailey> Anything that hasn't been debugged for gcc-4.0 is pretty much trash material anyway.
[05:52] <jbailey> At this point, everything in Debian is already done, and all of the actual compliance bugs are pretty much gone from gcc-4.0
[05:53] <jbailey> The last gcc-3 update has now been released.  Anything before 4.0 is pretty much considered dead.
[05:59] <doko> jbailey: there will be a last 3.4.6 in February (famous last words ...)
[06:00] <jbailey> doko: Eh?  I thought he said 3.4.5 was the last.  *sigh*
[06:00] <jbailey> What's the point of it?  gcc-4.0 isn't that far away from being oldstable.
[06:01] <tonyms> jbailey: that's all very well, but the C compiler isn't used just to compile Debian.  I would have a hard time convincing management that the system we sell our paying customers is "trash material" :)
[06:02] <jbailey> tonyms: *lol* possible.  But you might point out that it's probably poorly coded and perhaps some developer education time is needed.
[06:03] <jbailey> tonyms: Minus the occasional compiler bug, the gcc-4.0 transition is pretty much just moving to code that is actually standards compliant.
[06:03] <jbailey> We used to host weekly workshops at one company I worked for.  Covered things like this.  It worked out really nicely.
[06:05] <tonyms> jbailey: we're on our way; we already have migration guides, FAQs and the like, but the transition isn't over yet, so we have to support it for the time being, unfortunately.  Still, I'm learning a fair amount about cross-compiling with GCC :)
[06:06] <doko> jbailey: yes, I think we should get it into dapper, although it will miss feature freeze a bit
[06:13] <jbailey> doko: Given that it's not the system compiler, I don't see a problem with that.
[06:18] <doko> jbailey: yes, I'd like to have the ok from the glibc maintainer ;)
[06:18] <jbailey> I'd love to do a round of builds with it , but gab's been good with the updats.