| 1 |
Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 18:24:32 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Well the side effect of this is that arcane and unmaintainable bandworms |
| 4 |
> > like toolchain.eclass are generated, with dozens of case distinctions |
| 5 |
> > for packages that *nearly* noone needs. Yes it's fine to keep old things |
| 6 |
> > for a few people, does it merit slowing everyone else down though? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Do we really need glibc 2.9_p20081201-r3, 2.10.1-r1, 2.11.3, 2.12.1-r3, |
| 9 |
> > 2.12.2, 2.13-r2, 2.14, 2.14.1-r2, 2.14.1-r3, 2.15-r1, 2.15-r2, 2.15-r3, |
| 10 |
> > 2.16.0, 2.17, 2.18-r1, 2.19, 2.19-r1, and 2.20? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I can't fully speak to this as I'm not familiar. But are you? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, I'm not. Which is why I am asking. I'm happy to learn. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, |
| 17 |
> > 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, |
| 18 |
> > 4.5.4, 4.6.0, 4.6.1-r1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2-r1, |
| 19 |
> > 4.7.3-r1, 4.7.4, 4.8.0, 4.8.1-r1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and (deep |
| 20 |
> > breath) 4.9.2? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Between 4.8.3 and 4.8.4 there were 80 bug fixes with a yet unknown |
| 23 |
> number of regressions. Most people that hit these kinds of problems |
| 24 |
> revert to the previous working versions. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
OK, so then let's keep all 4.7.x, 4.8.x, 4.9.x, the latest stable 4.5 and 4.6, |
| 27 |
and maybe 3.4. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Add to that the quantum leaps |
| 30 |
> between 4.X and 4.(X+1) with no backwards compat in abis. Plus the fact |
| 31 |
> that some sensitive software usually aimed a special chips need specific |
| 32 |
> versions and the answer is ... yes. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
One of the many moments when I really wish we had gentoostats up and running. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Is it possible to emerge @system with, say, e.g. gcc-4.0 or 4.1? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
From the discussions about hardened 3.x is still interesting. But how much can |
| 39 |
you still do with it, does anyone try regularly? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Is anyone even testing 2.95 anymore? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> What happened here (in part) is the way we're doing multilib is |
| 44 |
> percolating through gentoo and hitting things it doesn't mesh with |
| 45 |
> well. That's fine we have to glue things together correctly. Throwing |
| 46 |
> stuff away when it doesn't mesh is not fine when its something good. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Please explain the specific connection of this problem with multilib. |
| 49 |
(Shouldn't you usually use the same gcc version for your whole system as far |
| 50 |
as you can?) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 55 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 56 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 57 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives