| 1 |
Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 17:20:31 schrieb Andrew Savchenko: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:11:01 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 3 |
> [...] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, |
| 6 |
> > 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, |
| 7 |
> > 4.5.4, 4.6.0, 4.6.1-r1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2-r1, |
| 8 |
> > 4.7.3-r1, 4.7.4, 4.8.0, 4.8.1-r1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and (deep |
| 9 |
> > breath) 4.9.2? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes, we do. There is a lot of software out there which needs |
| 12 |
> specific gcc version. E.g. I have fortran code which depends |
| 13 |
> gcc:3.4. Other example are cuda implementations which usually lag |
| 14 |
> behind mainstream gcc by one middle version. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Which gives us 3.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 at most. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> And please don't say "just fix it", |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm not saying "just fix it", I'm saying "... and of course you will happily |
| 21 |
join toolchain team and/or maintain the single gcc version that you need, at |
| 22 |
your own pace". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> some of such software is |
| 25 |
> binary, some other is too large to be updated regularly. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Please give REASONS why things should remain maintained. So far (except for |
| 28 |
the gcc-3/hardened explanations, and for gcc-3 doing more fortran than |
| 29 |
gcc-4(??)) this is mostly mumbo-jumbo about "someone might need it", |
| 30 |
proprietary binary blobs (should we even care? if yes, why?) and similar. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm VERY happy to hear arguments. Especially if they come with good practical |
| 33 |
and detailed examples that we all can understand. I guess we're all curious to |
| 34 |
learn about more Gentoo use cases. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 40 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 41 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives