| 1 |
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't believe retro-actively modifying the 2006.0 profile is a good |
| 3 |
> idea in general. The profile currently says that for x86, gcc |
| 4 |
> must be ">=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1" - if you do |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> # emerge >=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> on a current tree you'll get a much higher version. Still, it's up to |
| 9 |
> releng if they wish to change it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Even if you modify the profile to "mask" gcc-3.3.x, it won't force people to |
| 12 |
unmerge their existing gcc-3.3.x since it's slotted and they would already have |
| 13 |
gcc-3.4.x emerged, correct? And if we can't force them to unmerge it, we can't |
| 14 |
force them to switch which gcc version is active. Masking in the profile would |
| 15 |
have no effect if this is true. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ |
| 19 |
Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives