From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9850139694 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ED41E0DA4; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC677E0CAE for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1458:202:1c::102:cad]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: amadio) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F11E1341301 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:44:42 +0200 From: Guilherme Amadio To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc Message-ID: <20170425164441.GA6990@gentoo.org> References: <1492950948.19560.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170424160132.GA4479@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20170424175952.GA5202@gentoo.org> <20170425162616.GA19042@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170425162616.GA19042@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) X-Archives-Salt: 78f2cae9-4002-4450-93c3-35b3fc8f4689 X-Archives-Hash: 23b0125b5bbb4f49192193d886456567 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 problems before with CMake being aggressively removed, > > so I couldn't just install CMake 3.5.2 to test something that got > > broken with the latest CMake (3.7.2 at the time). > > > > For things like autotools, CMake, compilers, etc, I would like to > > see at least the latest release of the previous major version (e.g. > > CMake 2.8), and the last few latest releases from the current major > > version (e.g. CMake 3.{5,6,7}). Similarly for essential libraries, > > as in prefix you may be somewhat limited by the host (think macOS), > > so removing old ebuilds aggressively breaks stuff. I think this was > > the case with clang before, where we needed 3.5 and that got removed, > > so bootstrapping on macOS was broken for sometime. > > That's completely reasonable. My concern is that we have the following > versions of gcc in the tree: > > gcc-2.95.3-r10 > gcc-3.3.6-r1 > gcc-3.4.6-r2 > gcc-4.0.4 > gcc-4.1.2 > gcc-4.2.4-r1 > gcc-4.3.6-r1 > gcc-4.4.7 > gcc-4.5.4 > gcc-4.6.4 > gcc-4.7.4 > gcc-4.8.5 > gcc-4.9.3 > gcc-4.9.4 > gcc-5.4.0 > gcc-5.4.0-r3 > gcc-6.3.0 > > Under your proposal, I guess we would just have gcc-5.4.0-r3, gcc-4.9.4 > and maybe gcc-3.4.6-r2 and *definitely maybe* gcc-2.95.3-r10. Is this > correct? I'm not saying we should cut down to the set of versions I mentioned. I think it's totally fine to have all the gcc versions above in the tree. What I want to avoid is having less than what I said due to aggressive removal of older versions, at least for critical packages like the toolchain and related tools. So, I'd be happy with the set below for gcc, for example: > gcc-4.4.7 > gcc-4.7.4 > gcc-4.8.5 > gcc-4.9.4 > gcc-5.3.0 > gcc-5.4.0-r3 > gcc-6.3.0 However, it doesn't hurt to have the older 3.x and 2.95 versions in case someone needs to compile, say, software that was developed a long time ago and doesn't compile anymore with the latest compilers. Cheers, —Guilherme