| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree. |
| 4 |
> GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also for development. |
| 5 |
> I already had problems before with CMake being aggressively removed, |
| 6 |
> so I couldn't just install CMake 3.5.2 to test something that got |
| 7 |
> broken with the latest CMake (3.7.2 at the time). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> For things like autotools, CMake, compilers, etc, I would like to |
| 10 |
> see at least the latest release of the previous major version (e.g. |
| 11 |
> CMake 2.8), and the last few latest releases from the current major |
| 12 |
> version (e.g. CMake 3.{5,6,7}). Similarly for essential libraries, |
| 13 |
> as in prefix you may be somewhat limited by the host (think macOS), |
| 14 |
> so removing old ebuilds aggressively breaks stuff. I think this was |
| 15 |
> the case with clang before, where we needed 3.5 and that got removed, |
| 16 |
> so bootstrapping on macOS was broken for sometime. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's completely reasonable. My concern is that we have the following |
| 19 |
versions of gcc in the tree: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
gcc-2.95.3-r10 |
| 22 |
gcc-3.3.6-r1 |
| 23 |
gcc-3.4.6-r2 |
| 24 |
gcc-4.0.4 |
| 25 |
gcc-4.1.2 |
| 26 |
gcc-4.2.4-r1 |
| 27 |
gcc-4.3.6-r1 |
| 28 |
gcc-4.4.7 |
| 29 |
gcc-4.5.4 |
| 30 |
gcc-4.6.4 |
| 31 |
gcc-4.7.4 |
| 32 |
gcc-4.8.5 |
| 33 |
gcc-4.9.3 |
| 34 |
gcc-4.9.4 |
| 35 |
gcc-5.4.0 |
| 36 |
gcc-5.4.0-r3 |
| 37 |
gcc-6.3.0 |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Under your proposal, I guess we would just have gcc-5.4.0-r3, gcc-4.9.4 |
| 40 |
and maybe gcc-3.4.6-r2 and *definitely maybe* gcc-2.95.3-r10. Is this |
| 41 |
correct? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
William |
Archives