| 1 |
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:00:26PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/05/17 01:58 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 5/3/17 6:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Hey all, |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> I am asking about this because I have been asked to look into |
| 7 |
> >> packaging software that has a specific requirement for >=gcc-6 in order |
| 8 |
> >> to build [1]. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > As I said few times, we should dump gcc-5 sooner than later and any |
| 11 |
> > software that does not build with gcc-6 should be p.masked and dropped |
| 12 |
> > from the tree if there isn't a nice fix for it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Just a heads-up, that p.mask list would happen to include firefox and |
| 15 |
> thunderbird right now. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So if we don't p.mask those, is them breaking with gcc-6 still enough |
| 18 |
to keep gcc-6 out of ~? If not, I definitely +1 what lu_zero said, |
| 19 |
let's add ~keywords to gcc-6. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
William |
Archives