On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:44:32 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Because the thought that stable is always "stable" or that because
> > we released things are "stable" is incorrect ;)
> 
> You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that surely must include
> stabilising a compiler (which is the _default_ for new installs) that
> can't compile all the packages marked stable for your arch.

That's just not feasible, as we've identified before.  You can't expect
sys-devel/gcc to take responsibility for every package in the tree in
all configurations.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn