| 1 |
2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 4 |
> > Hi, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular |
| 7 |
> > older than the 4.9 branch. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Masking is fine; some time later (maybe in a few months) I'd even suggest |
| 11 |
> masking all of gcc-4. After all, unmasking them if you really need them is |
| 12 |
> rather easy. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
well if the intent is cleaning adding a package mask is just more burden, |
| 16 |
not less. |
| 17 |
If they compile fine with the latest stable gcc better leave them unmasked, |
| 18 |
right? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> About removing them (what William proposed), I'd keep what we have now. We |
| 24 |
> had |
| 25 |
> this discussion already in lots of detail in the past, and convincing |
| 26 |
> points |
| 27 |
> were made to keep one of each 4.x ... |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
do you have any pointers or keyword to search? |
| 31 |
Because once upon a time there were incompatible changes frequently (2.95 |
| 32 |
=> 3.x with x < 4 was bloody) but nowadays everything "C" seem more stable. |
| 33 |
And the switch to c++11 still ongoing started with 4.8 and far less |
| 34 |
problematic. |
| 35 |
Maybe different arches than amd64? Binary packages? Embedded platforms? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> -- |
| 40 |
> Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 41 |
> dilfridge@g.o |
| 42 |
> Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) |
Archives