1 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:32:00 +0200 |
2 |
"Molle Bestefich" <molle.bestefich@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Richard Fish wrote: |
5 |
> > Having dozens (hundreds? all?) ebuilds check for a minimum version |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Probably just the ebuilds that happen to use new GCC features before |
8 |
> the mass of the general public has changed to that version. But yes, |
9 |
> a minimum version constraint could theoretically end up in a lot of |
10 |
> packages. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > of gcc doesn't seem very effecient. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I can't see why it would not be efficient? |
15 |
|
16 |
Imagine checking over 11,000 packages (over 24,000 ebuilds) against all |
17 |
stable compiler versions in the tree, working out which versions of the |
18 |
compiler currently don't allow each package to build successfully and |
19 |
then adding the relevant code to the ebuild to handle that information. |
20 |
|
21 |
Now imagine updating a compiler version to fix an issue, then having to |
22 |
go through the whole tree looking for ebuilds that restrict against |
23 |
that compiler version, and checking them to see if the restriction can |
24 |
be lifted. |
25 |
|
26 |
It may be efficient for the user, but it creates mountains of work for |
27 |
the volunteer devs whose time is better spent focusing on latest stable |
28 |
versions. |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> > I don't think the issue is as simple as either having xine-lib put |
32 |
> > out a warning about a particular gcc version, as that doesn't work |
33 |
> > in the general case. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Obviously any solution implemented should work for all ebuilds, not |
36 |
> just xine-lib. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> > And putting the checks in portage doesn't seem to work very well |
39 |
> > either. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> I fail to see how a test in the ebuild for the active |
42 |
> GCC compiler version wouldn't work? |
43 |
|
44 |
It wouldn't work in that it's just not maintainable. There's more to a |
45 |
process working than just whether a particular piece of code functions |
46 |
correctly or not. |
47 |
|
48 |
> > The system as it is now actually seems to work about right... the |
49 |
> > vast majority of stable users upgrade to new versions of gcc as they |
50 |
> > come out |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Really? |
53 |
> How do you gather? |
54 |
|
55 |
Suffice to say that many users track the latest stable versions of |
56 |
everything on their system. We don't know how many people stick to old |
57 |
versions or for how long they do so. However if many people remained |
58 |
on old versions of the compiler, I suspect we'd be seeing a lot of bugs |
59 |
related to that - and we're not seeing them. |
60 |
|
61 |
> I'd think that most users hadn't even run into this problem (yet), |
62 |
> because many source code maintainers strive to be able to compile with |
63 |
> as old a version of GCC as possible.. |
64 |
|
65 |
That's unlikely to be true. Some upstream developers do maintain |
66 |
compatibility with a range of compiler versions. Some upstream |
67 |
developers only recommend one specific version. Many will be somewhere |
68 |
in between. |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
Kevin F. Quinn |