| 1 |
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:50:24 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Freitag, 14. November 2014, 15:49:17 schrieb Andrew Savchenko: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:08:17 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Question 1: is it desirable to e.g. switch compilers, compile systemd, |
| 5 |
> > > and then switch back? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > This is definitely a good idea. Some packages are picky about gcc |
| 8 |
> > versions, e.g. dev-util/nvidia-cuda-toolkit usually lags behind the |
| 9 |
> > latest available gcc version by one. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> E.g. cmake may fail to run correctly if it is built with a newer compiler than |
| 12 |
> the one currently selected. Or so I remember from a bug some time ago. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There are packages (or more precisely combinations of packages and |
| 15 |
use flags) for which there is no other way to build them. They need |
| 16 |
older gcc and they build fine with it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So the question is whether users will struggle themselves or PMS |
| 19 |
will support this in a friendly way. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Please note, I'm not talking about gcc dynamic version switch for |
| 22 |
each package in portage. Only small number of them needs this and |
| 23 |
if some of this little set will experience gcc-downgrade related |
| 24 |
bug (e.g. cmake bug mentioned above), IMHO this should be handled |
| 25 |
separately. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives