1 |
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 13:51 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:27:57AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 08:20 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> > > > On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
6 |
|
7 |
> > > > like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when |
8 |
> > > > USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue |
9 |
> > > > about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf and |
10 |
> > > > then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ... |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only |
13 |
> > > asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already |
14 |
> > > explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too. |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > No offence, but you are being very unreasonable in this thread. The |
18 |
> > fact that you can get what you are after, even though its not entirely |
19 |
> > supported, should be enough for you, especially for the fact that you |
20 |
> > are not clueless. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > You should remember that somebody at the end of the day have to |
23 |
> > sacrifice time and effort to fix bugs, and especially with something as |
24 |
> > complex as gcc, the more variables, the more effort it is going to be. |
25 |
> > And as Mike is relatively the only person currently who seems to |
26 |
> > maintain gcc, it should be his prerogative to decided that he get too |
27 |
> > much spam without the stubs. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Sorry, but how much mail he gets does not affect one bit which behaviour |
30 |
> is better, it only helps understand why the lesser behaviour could be |
31 |
> chosen by reasonable people anyway. (Regardless of which behaviour is |
32 |
> the lesser one.) And I don't harass anyone about -- it's been a very |
33 |
> long time since I even mentioned any problems like this, and if nothing |
34 |
> is done after this thread dies, I'll likely be quiet about it for a long |
35 |
> time again -- so please don't act like I do. |
36 |
> |
37 |
|
38 |
Actually it does if it cuts back his time by a very large percentage so |
39 |
that he cannot do the other things he wants/needs to. I assume this was |
40 |
the case if he added that in the first place, and still refuse to change |
41 |
it. |
42 |
|
43 |
> > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches |
44 |
> > > don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a supported |
45 |
> > > compiler in Gentoo. |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > For the fact that we do not support vanilla gcc - I assume this is a gcc |
48 |
> > built by yourself - |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Actually, I meant gcc built with the vanilla flag here, as opposed to |
51 |
> pure official GCC, which I already stated is unsupported earlier. |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
Hmm, thought I might have had it a tad wrong. I still though do not |
55 |
understand what the whole fuss is about stubs for some 5 flags. (which |
56 |
is what you are left with with USE="vanilla nossp" currently if my |
57 |
memory is correct). Maybe read down a bit before replying here. |
58 |
|
59 |
> > this truly is really unfair of you to expect it. |
60 |
> > The 'contract' we usually have with upstream, is that if we apply |
61 |
> > patches to their software, we will be the first tier in the support |
62 |
> > chain. Now you want to run gcc which was not modified by us to fix the |
63 |
> > known hangups in how we do things - or save us time for that matter, and |
64 |
> > you still want us to support it - or at least make life easier for us by |
65 |
> > not leaving gaping holes that cost us maintenance time? |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Differences between official GCC and Gentoo's GCC are 1) fixed bugs, and |
68 |
> 2) added features. (Assuming no patches are broken.) I think it's |
69 |
> reasonable to not rely on the existence of those added features. |
70 |
|
71 |
I think its reasonable to no force the feature on you, but add the stubs |
72 |
if it became a maintenance headache. I am pretty sure it was not |
73 |
toolchain who brought the whole situation about in the first place. |
74 |
|
75 |
You can however fix the tree to make sure it will fully build without |
76 |
those flags, and then talk to Mike again about removing them. I am sure |
77 |
he might be more willing if it will not steal his time again. |
78 |
|
79 |
> You |
80 |
> seem to think I think it's reasonable to not rely on bugs being |
81 |
> fixed. No problem there, I don't. |
82 |
> |
83 |
|
84 |
Not at all. I thought you think its reasonable to just keep loading |
85 |
work on other people - or possible did not see that that would have been |
86 |
the end result. More about this to the end. |
87 |
|
88 |
> Besides, I said it's unfortunate that vanilla GCC (either one) is |
89 |
> unsupported, not that it must be. My other problem, that vanilla |
90 |
> GCC is different from Gentoo's GCC with the vanilla flag (plus maybe |
91 |
> nossp/nopie/...), can be handled without requiring support for it from |
92 |
> anyone. |
93 |
> |
94 |
|
95 |
From the length of this email, and you not wanting to see the reasoning, |
96 |
or not having started to fix the tree so that your wish can be full |
97 |
filled, It rather sounded like you did demand it. Or this was at least |
98 |
the impression I got. |
99 |
|
100 |
Also once again I do not see what the big issue with the stubs is. You |
101 |
keep making a big issue out of it without giving concrete examples or |
102 |
serious issues it is causing. The problem was there before they were |
103 |
added, and not due to them - its even possible that with test_flag() its |
104 |
less of an issue now. Still read down a bit before replying here. |
105 |
|
106 |
> > The alternative to this that you seem to ignore, is that you can start |
107 |
> > helping maintaining gcc (I am sure Mike will appreciate help with |
108 |
> > Halcy0n gone as well, and me not having that much time currently). |
109 |
> |
110 |
> Since I'm more interested in vanilla GCC, I think there's little to help |
111 |
> maintain from Gentoo's side (support in ebuilds, and possibly the build |
112 |
> process, that's it). If that's something you think help would be good |
113 |
> for anyway, though, sure, if I can. |
114 |
> |
115 |
|
116 |
Vanilla, Gentoo patched - they all have bugs which bugzilla have more |
117 |
than enough of in. And in the perfect world Gentoo patched gcc will |
118 |
have less bugs than the Vanilla one. |
119 |
|
120 |
> > And |
121 |
> > of course promising so long as the stubs do not get applied with nossp, |
122 |
> > that you will handle all breakage in that area. |
123 |
> |
124 |
> I have no problems modifying ebuilds / packages to autodetect flags |
125 |
> instead of assuming they exist myself, if it means vanilla GCC will be |
126 |
> supported feature-wise, for those versions of which the corresponding |
127 |
> Gentoo-patched version is supported. |
128 |
> |
129 |
|
130 |
OK, maybe I was just too dense to see it before, or maybe you kept |
131 |
dancing around the issue. To put it clear (or try at least), your whole |
132 |
issue currently is that you cannot use a 'Vanilla' gcc (ie without the |
133 |
stubs) to build everything in the tree ? And not as much the stubs them |
134 |
selfs ? |
135 |
|
136 |
If this is the case, then I think you have been barking up the wrong |
137 |
tree this whole time. It was not toolchain who assumed flags are |
138 |
present in some gcc to whatever packages - we just maintain the |
139 |
toolchain. And I am sure not all the blame will fall on hardened |
140 |
either, as many package maintainers for packages that would not work |
141 |
with SSP might have fixed it by just disabling it via CFLAGS. |
142 |
|
143 |
So really, hitting the specific maintainers or upstream with a clue |
144 |
stick would have been the logical solution that did not bog down |
145 |
toolchain even more. |
146 |
|
147 |
> > Although I do not know |
148 |
> > if its still really fair to expect Jakub et ell to sacrifice time to |
149 |
> > process the bugs, and get them to you if its related to something |
150 |
> > failing due to the missing stubs. |
151 |
> |
152 |
> I /could/ read toolchain@ mail if I would help out with GCC, you know, |
153 |
> which is where such bugs should end up going to currently (those not |
154 |
> closed as dupes) if the package maintainer thinks it's a bug that some |
155 |
> GCC version doesn't support a particular flag. :) Or am I |
156 |
> misunderstanding? |
157 |
|
158 |
I think you understood wrongly. |
159 |
|
160 |
If the stubs were to be just removed say tomorrow, and breakage in the |
161 |
tree is still of such an extend that bugs starts to flood in again, its |
162 |
not just you that will have to read the mail. If the user is clueless, |
163 |
then Jakub have to reassign the bug to either toolchain or the package |
164 |
maintainer. If he could not determine it was due to the missing CFLAG, |
165 |
and it ended up with the package maintainer, then they would have had to |
166 |
reassign it to toolchain. Either case, if it was a very bad report, |
167 |
they would first have to spend time and effort in getting the correct |
168 |
information. And besides all that, for each reassignment or comment to |
169 |
the bug, it would have been extra mail that a few or possible a lot of |
170 |
people had to have spend time on to read (except if they >/dev/null it, |
171 |
but then they could miss possible need to check them selfs on it again). |
172 |
|
173 |
So I really just wanted to make you think about how things could (and |
174 |
probably did) cascade before the stubs was added. |
175 |
|
176 |
|
177 |
|
178 |
-- |
179 |
Martin Schlemmer |