From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EhJoB-0004rL-Ir for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:43:08 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAU4gPCk003487; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:42:25 GMT Received: from mta11.adelphia.net (mta11.adelphia.net [68.168.78.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAU4eeYE016611 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:40:41 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.165] (really [68.168.137.100]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051130044037.JLLN26058.mta11.adelphia.net@[192.168.0.165]> for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:40:37 -0500 Message-ID: <438D2D88.7030004@leetworks.com> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:41:44 -0500 From: Andrew Muraco User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051102) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86 References: <20051128142233.GA19195@aerie.halcy0n.com> <200511291501.42275.mike@gaima.co.uk> <1133278747.13876.26.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> In-Reply-To: <1133278747.13876.26.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: bd8de8a4-87e2-4477-a48f-1868c7fe1a3b X-Archives-Hash: d50be0213d9d974c330fae59dbab3f6e Chris Gianelloni wrote: >On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +0000, Mike Williams wrote: > > >>On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote: >> >> >>>This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably >>>going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the >>>archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could >>>give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great. Only thing I >>>see as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly >>>upgrade your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that >>>have a system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they >>>get linking errors. >>> >>> >>Shouldn't this be a profile thing? i.e. 200{4,5}.X stays at 3.3.X, 2006.X-> go >>to 3.4.X >> >> > >Nope. > >While it would be possible to limit it to a specific profile, it really >makes it a pain in the ass, especially for two versions that are almost >compatible, as opposed to the profiles that we have done in the past >where we were going from things like gcc2 to gcc3, that were not very >compatible, at all. > > Out of curiosity, if this goes into effect before 2006.0 is released, then ALL the stages for x86 and the livecd would be built with gcc34? If so then I think this may benefit alot of users, especially ones that do a stage1/2 just so they can shove gcc34 into there system at an early stage. Also, if gcc34 gets moved to x86, would gcc40 be ~x86? This I see as a bigger problem for those of us that are already running gcc34. But I'm sure many ~x86 users would welcome that, after all what fun is ~x86 without some breakage every now and then ;-) Greetings, Tuxp3 Andrew Muraco www.leetworks.com -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list