| 1 |
On 03/05/17 02:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:00:26PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/05/17 01:58 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 5/3/17 6:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Hey all, |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> I am asking about this because I have been asked to look into |
| 8 |
>>>> packaging software that has a specific requirement for >=gcc-6 in order |
| 9 |
>>>> to build [1]. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> As I said few times, we should dump gcc-5 sooner than later and any |
| 12 |
>>> software that does not build with gcc-6 should be p.masked and dropped |
| 13 |
>>> from the tree if there isn't a nice fix for it. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Just a heads-up, that p.mask list would happen to include firefox and |
| 16 |
>> thunderbird right now. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So if we don't p.mask those, is them breaking with gcc-6 still enough |
| 19 |
> to keep gcc-6 out of ~? If not, I definitely +1 what lu_zero said, |
| 20 |
> let's add ~keywords to gcc-6. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> William |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
No, i'm good with keywording gcc-6 still. I'm just not Ok with |
| 26 |
firefox and tbird and others being p.masked for removal simply because |
| 27 |
they don't build. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Also its worth noting that the gcc-6.3 build failure is apparently not |
| 30 |
absolute, there are people that have built mozilla stuff fine with 6.3 |
Archives