| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree. |
| 5 |
> > GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also for development. |
| 6 |
> > I already had problems before with CMake being aggressively removed, |
| 7 |
> > so I couldn't just install CMake 3.5.2 to test something that got |
| 8 |
> > broken with the latest CMake (3.7.2 at the time). |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > For things like autotools, CMake, compilers, etc, I would like to |
| 11 |
> > see at least the latest release of the previous major version (e.g. |
| 12 |
> > CMake 2.8), and the last few latest releases from the current major |
| 13 |
> > version (e.g. CMake 3.{5,6,7}). Similarly for essential libraries, |
| 14 |
> > as in prefix you may be somewhat limited by the host (think macOS), |
| 15 |
> > so removing old ebuilds aggressively breaks stuff. I think this was |
| 16 |
> > the case with clang before, where we needed 3.5 and that got removed, |
| 17 |
> > so bootstrapping on macOS was broken for sometime. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That's completely reasonable. My concern is that we have the following |
| 20 |
> versions of gcc in the tree: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> gcc-2.95.3-r10 |
| 23 |
> gcc-3.3.6-r1 |
| 24 |
> gcc-3.4.6-r2 |
| 25 |
> gcc-4.0.4 |
| 26 |
> gcc-4.1.2 |
| 27 |
> gcc-4.2.4-r1 |
| 28 |
> gcc-4.3.6-r1 |
| 29 |
> gcc-4.4.7 |
| 30 |
> gcc-4.5.4 |
| 31 |
> gcc-4.6.4 |
| 32 |
> gcc-4.7.4 |
| 33 |
> gcc-4.8.5 |
| 34 |
> gcc-4.9.3 |
| 35 |
> gcc-4.9.4 |
| 36 |
> gcc-5.4.0 |
| 37 |
> gcc-5.4.0-r3 |
| 38 |
> gcc-6.3.0 |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Under your proposal, I guess we would just have gcc-5.4.0-r3, gcc-4.9.4 |
| 41 |
> and maybe gcc-3.4.6-r2 and *definitely maybe* gcc-2.95.3-r10. Is this |
| 42 |
> correct? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I'm not saying we should cut down to the set of versions I mentioned. |
| 45 |
I think it's totally fine to have all the gcc versions above in the tree. |
| 46 |
What I want to avoid is having less than what I said due to aggressive |
| 47 |
removal of older versions, at least for critical packages like the toolchain |
| 48 |
and related tools. So, I'd be happy with the set below for gcc, for example: |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> gcc-4.4.7 |
| 51 |
> gcc-4.7.4 |
| 52 |
> gcc-4.8.5 |
| 53 |
> gcc-4.9.4 |
| 54 |
> gcc-5.3.0 |
| 55 |
> gcc-5.4.0-r3 |
| 56 |
> gcc-6.3.0 |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
However, it doesn't hurt to have the older 3.x and 2.95 versions in case |
| 59 |
someone needs to compile, say, software that was developed a long time |
| 60 |
ago and doesn't compile anymore with the latest compilers. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Cheers, |
| 63 |
—Guilherme |
Archives