| 1 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Francois Bissey wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 07/11/12 21:08, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > 07.11.2012, 07:03, "François Bissey" <francois.bissey@×××××××××××××.nz<javascript:;> |
| 7 |
> >: |
| 8 |
> >> Hi, |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> I have currently a prefix on OS X and I use gcc-apple. I tried a couple |
| 11 |
> >> of times to use vanilla gcc which is currently masked but I had |
| 12 |
> problems. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > You can unmask it and emerge, than use it as your default portage |
| 15 |
> compiler. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yes and it will regularly fail to compile stuff. I have tried it this |
| 19 |
> afternoon and it failed to compile glib (that was gcc-4.6.3) it is |
| 20 |
> masked for a reason. I am just wondering what we want to do long term |
| 21 |
> because vanilla gcc seem to be unreliable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
"We" do nothing. You can poke upstream of your favorite project to make the |
| 25 |
software work with older compilers or provide patches. It is just |
| 26 |
unreasonable to ask the downstream enabler to fix random projects. |
| 27 |
-Jeremy |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Francois |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
Archives