Re: [gentoo-user] Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?

[Alexander Skwar]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> I don't know what 'upgrade guide' you have read, but:

The gcc upgrade doc. The one, to which there is a link in the GWN.

> Which part of the upgrade guide did you not follw?

I followed the part, which said, that no additional work was required. The
part, which is now gone. The part, in the first green box.

>>And it said, that 4.1.1 was supposed to be binary compatible to 3.4.6.
>
> it did not say so some weeks ago, and it does not say so today.

It said so, right after 4.1.1 was unmasked and the GWN was released.


>>> in such cases a rebuild of the affected packages
>>>(or even whole toolchain and system) might be required.
>
>>And thus, a rebuild of world/tc/system wouldn't be required.
>
> wrong., read again.

Yes, please FINALLY do so. Read it! At least once!

> It says 'that a rebuild of system (which is a rebuild of
> the toolchain), might be required.

It didn't say so. It (basically) said, that no additional work would be
required.

> You behave like someone who never experienced a gcc-update.

I behave like someone, who's been told to do "a" and now "b" is expected.

>>Where was there a Qt update?
>
> like the qt3.3.0 to 3.3.2 or 3.3.3 or 3.3.4 updates? or 3.2 to 3.3?

So? Where was there an update?

I said, that I recompiled Qt 3 and Qt 4.

Now YOU explain, where there was an update. BTW: Updating without changing
the version or revision is no update.

>>No, it doesn't.
>
> yes it does.

When did a non-update require something like this? Please be exact!

>>>> Did you try to compile glib? No? Then I guess you've done no testing.
>>
>>>if he does not have glib?
>
>>Then he installs it.
>
> so, he should install something he does not need and 'test' it, to satisfy
> your needs?

Not MY needs, no. But to be able to say that all is fine, when it has been
posted here, that glib is one of the culprits.

> Why should he?

To verify what he's saying.

>>And also pardon me, when I'm annoyed because of too bold statements
>>which turn out to be wrong. If it says "no problems expected", then
> t>>at's what I expect. I don't expect to run into deep problems. And
>>the GWN and upgrade doc clearly stated, that there were no problems
>>to be expected.
>
>
> No, it did not.

Wrong. It still does. You should read it.

> It said:
>  The number of applications that do not compile with gcc-4.1 is extremely
> small now, and most users should not experience any problems with ~arch
> packages not compiling.

So, what? Who's complaining about packages which don't compile because of
gcc-4.1.1?

> see?

Yes. You're misinterpreting what's written there. You should read it again.
And again. And again. Maybe you'll finally understand what's written there.

> 'most users' and '~arch packages'

So?

> You are just sulking around,

I'm not sulking around. I just expect, that what's written there is true.

And it's not.

>>I deal with them just fine.
>
> so why are you doing this 'Zwergenaufstand'?

Because of broken expectations.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags.
		-- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list