On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:27:08 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > 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 t
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 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 (mayb
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:32:21AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote
> 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.
It can be done, but it takes a little work. I do a contributed build
for
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 02:37:17 CEST schrieb Francesco Riosa:
>> 2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel :
>> > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I'm thinking of masking o
On śro, 2017-04-26 at 11:42 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > The most important goal of having the packages masked is that it would
> > cause Portage to verbosely complain whenever the users have it
> > installed. With appropriate comment (displayed by Portage)
Michał Górny schrieb:
The most important goal of having the packages masked is that it would
cause Portage to verbosely complain whenever the users have it
installed. With appropriate comment (displayed by Portage), we could
clearly inform users that they need to upgrade gcc and switch to a new
v
Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 02:37:17 CEST schrieb Francesco Riosa:
> 2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel :
> > 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
2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel :
> 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
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
On 25/04/2017 18:44, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree.
GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also fo
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
> >
> > I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree.
> > GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also for development.
> > I already had pro
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
>
> I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree.
> GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also for development.
> I already had problems before with CMake being aggressively removed,
> so I couldn't just
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:01:32AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 02:35:48PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular
> > older than the 4.9 branch.
> [...]
> > My solution
> > ===
> >
> > I thin
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 02:35:48PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular
> older than the 4.9 branch.
>
>
> The problem
> ===
>
> Gentoo users still sometimes try to build new packages with old gcc
> versions which inev
Hi,
I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular
older than the 4.9 branch.
The problem
===
Gentoo users still sometimes try to build new packages with old gcc
versions which inevitably fails, either due to bugs or missing features
in the old versions of gcc. The
15 matches
Mail list logo
