| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:10:48 +0200 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> | > Not true. According to the 2006.0 x86 profile, for example, you're |
| 7 |
> | > required to have ">=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1". There is no requirement |
| 8 |
> | > that 3.4 be installed. |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | Yeah, that's not what I've been talking about at all, what's your |
| 11 |
> | point? I was saying that gcc-3.4 and better is stable everywhere |
| 12 |
> | where it's needed. How does it change that 3.3 is dead as a nail in a |
| 13 |
> | lamproom door and users should switch to something that we actually |
| 14 |
> | can support? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Tradition for toolchain stuff has always been that anything allowed by |
| 17 |
> the profile is considered acceptable for general use. So, if users |
| 18 |
> shouldn't be using 3.3, the profile should be changed to say so. Until |
| 19 |
> then there's no obligation to upgrade. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Then it seems like that 2006.0 x86 profile should be updated (without waiting |
| 23 |
for 2006.1 to be released). Dunno if other arches have to run such legacy gcc |
| 24 |
versions, but the logical thing is to point to 3.4.x instead on x86. |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQFEsYLBrsJQqN81j74RAidcAKCGdhpAiObclSZuwR8Heod1wqK9yQCgmI16 |
| 29 |
ax6u8GA7z9GQEkdqErq8xD4= |
| 30 |
=0VzK |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives