1 |
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches |
6 |
> > > > don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a supported |
7 |
> > > > compiler in Gentoo. |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla |
10 |
> > > ... |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of |
13 |
> > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with |
14 |
> > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done |
15 |
> > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done |
16 |
> > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your |
19 |
> request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with |
20 |
> what we have now. see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ? |
21 |
|
22 |
Actually, you did ignore. The below text refers to something older. |
23 |
|
24 |
> as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred |
25 |
> to keep users from breaking themselves |
26 |
> |
27 |
> also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation |
28 |
> by simply deleting them: |
29 |
> rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/* |
30 |
> and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list |
31 |
|
32 |
Yes, you told me this, before USE=vanilla even existed for gcc. When |
33 |
there's no implicit claim that installed GCC is official GCC, it's much |
34 |
less of a problem that it's not. Back then, I never complained that the |
35 |
installed GCC wasn't the official GCC, only that (a manually installed) |
36 |
official GCC wasn't a supported compiler. And I did not ask for an |
37 |
official way to disable the stub patches then, I only asked how I could |
38 |
do it for my own system. |
39 |
|
40 |
> once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply |
41 |
> the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the |
42 |
> situation i referred to earlier |
43 |
|
44 |
Thanks. I hope that if a similar situation comes up, ebuilds will use |
45 |
test-flags instead of assuming the option is valid, though. |
46 |
|
47 |
> > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing |
48 |
> > > this behavior |
49 |
> > > |
50 |
> > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i |
51 |
> > > really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+ |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it |
54 |
> > is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be called |
55 |
> > "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread |
56 |
> > started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain about |
57 |
> > now.) |
58 |
> |
59 |
> you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really |
60 |
> see how you could have expected this to be fixed already |
61 |
|
62 |
I didn't point that out to you, I pointed that out to another of the |
63 |
toolchain guys. I'm not completely sure who, but I think it was |
64 |
Halcy0n. |
65 |
|
66 |
> i'll update cvs when i get a chance |
67 |
|
68 |
Thanks again. |
69 |
-- |
70 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |