Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 02:37:17 CEST schrieb Francesco Riosa: > 2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org>: > > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > > > older than the 4.9 branch. > > > > Masking is fine; some time later (maybe in a few months) I'd even suggest > > masking all of gcc-4. After all, unmasking them if you really need them is > > rather easy. > > well if the intent is cleaning adding a package mask is just more burden, > not less. > If they compile fine with the latest stable gcc better leave them unmasked, > right?
Except that "switching back" from gcc-5 to gcc-4 doesn't really work, and that gcc-4 will happily use gcc-5 libraries, with unintended consequences. As far as I understand it, the clean way is to either emerge gcc-5 and set it as default, or mask gcc-5 and keep it off your system. Masking gcc-4 would force people to make a decision. > > About removing them (what William proposed), I'd keep what we have now. We > > had > > this discussion already in lots of detail in the past, and convincing > > points > > were made to keep one of each 4.x ... > > do you have any pointers or keyword to search? > Because once upon a time there were incompatible changes frequently (2.95 > => 3.x with x < 4 was bloody) but nowadays everything "C" seem more stable. > And the switch to c++11 still ongoing started with 4.8 and far less > problematic. > Maybe different arches than amd64? Binary packages? Embedded platforms? I don't know the details anymore, will search later. But blueness was the right person to ask. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
