[GEM-dev] building gem CVS (anonymous from right now)

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

B. Bogart wrote:
> g++ 3.3.5 (1:3.3.5-13) debian package.
> 
> In order to clean up my installation machine I'm thinking of burning an
> unstable DVD and dist-upgrading the thing.
> 
> Is "unstable" really unstable, or really just full of bugs?
> 
> I seem to have more bugs/issues with a sarge/unstable mix then perhaps I
> would have with a 100% unstable machine...
> 
> what do you think?
> 
> I can't go back to sarge since I needed libs and packages not available
> in sarge.. I can't remember what offhand...

i am using both a a mix of sarge/etch/sid (stable/testing/unstable),
and a mix of etch/sid (with a tendency towards the latter)

"unstable" is unstable and _not_ full of bugs.
what is "unstable" today, might become "testing" tomorrow and "stable" 
in 2 years (with respect to debian's release cycles)

however, i have now tested to compile an anonymous checkout of src/Base/ 
with g++-3.3 (Debian 1:3.3.6-10), g++-3.4 (Debian 3.4.5-1) and g++-4.0 
(Debian 4.0.2-5), without any problems.
are you sure you have a clean checkout of the latest HEAD?


mfga.dsr
IOhannes