1 |
On 2016-05-13, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Well, I had never tried 4.9.3, and I'd been using 4.6 without problems |
4 |
> for some time, so keeping 4.6 seemed like the safe way to go. I still |
5 |
> don't understand what broke 4.6. |
6 |
|
7 |
I must have been using 4.9 for a while and then switched back to 4.6 |
8 |
when I ran across something that wouldn't build with 4.9. That would |
9 |
explain why packages could no longer be built with 4.6. If I |
10 |
understand correctly, there's no guarantee that you can build packages |
11 |
with a gcc version that's older than that used to build libraries that |
12 |
are used by the package being built. |
13 |
|
14 |
The good news: the emerge of gcc 4.9.3 (from sources) using a gcc |
15 |
4.9.3 binary package seems to have worked, and it looks like things |
16 |
are building normally now. |
17 |
|
18 |
I'm pretty sure this all would have been avoided if I had told |
19 |
gcc-config to switch to 4.9.3 and then let emerge remove the older |
20 |
versions of gcc. :) |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! And furthermore, |
24 |
at my bowling average is |
25 |
gmail.com unimpeachable!!! |