Re: [lmi] PATCH: Fix build with gcc11 in C++20 mode

[Greg Chicares]

On 10/22/21 4:55 PM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:44:18 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:
[...]
> GC> I think it's advantageous to continue running CI builds under
> GC> 'unstable', for the reason you gave. Then the question becomes what
> GC> debian release to use in two cases:
> GC>   (1) for production...why not move to 'bookworm'?
> 
>  The only reason I see is that right now we don't need it and stable is,
> well, stable.

To me at least, choosing between 'stable' and 'testing' seems to be a
big strategic decision, whereas adhering to 'testing' as it evolves
seems to be a comparatively minor, tactical matter. If we decide now
to keep 'bullseye' for production now that it's 'stable', then changing
back to 'testing' later will be a major undertaking, as it will require
a new chroot.

I'm guessing that someday we'll want a newer version of some package
and will therefore want 'testing'.

> GC>   (2) for non-unstable CI builds...shouldn't we use the same
> GC>       answer as for (1)? In particular, if we use 'bookworm' for
> GC>       production, why would we want anything older for CI?
> 
>  We wouldn't. But we would almost certainly want to run CI in both Bookworm
> and Sid environments, to give us an advance warning of the problems that
> are going to appear in the former, wouldn't we?

Yes, that sounds ideal.