| 1 |
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:27:14 -0700 |
| 2 |
Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:10:48 +0200 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> |
| 9 |
> > wrote: | > Not true. According to the 2006.0 x86 profile, for |
| 10 |
> > example, you're | > required to have ">=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1". |
| 11 |
> > There is no requirement | > that 3.4 be installed. |
| 12 |
> > | |
| 13 |
> > | Yeah, that's not what I've been talking about at all, what's your |
| 14 |
> > | point? I was saying that gcc-3.4 and better is stable everywhere |
| 15 |
> > | where it's needed. How does it change that 3.3 is dead as a nail |
| 16 |
> > in a | lamproom door and users should switch to something that we |
| 17 |
> > actually | can support? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Tradition for toolchain stuff has always been that anything allowed |
| 20 |
> > by the profile is considered acceptable for general use. So, if |
| 21 |
> > users shouldn't be using 3.3, the profile should be changed to say |
| 22 |
> > so. Until then there's no obligation to upgrade. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> Then it seems like that 2006.0 x86 profile should be updated (without |
| 25 |
> waiting for 2006.1 to be released). Dunno if other arches have to run |
| 26 |
> such legacy gcc versions, but the logical thing is to point to 3.4.x |
| 27 |
> instead on x86. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I don't believe retro-actively modifying the 2006.0 profile is a good |
| 30 |
idea in general. The profile currently says that for x86, gcc |
| 31 |
must be ">=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1" - if you do |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
# emerge >=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
on a current tree you'll get a much higher version. Still, it's up to |
| 36 |
releng if they wish to change it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives