From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-80355-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 E69DA139694
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:38:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7879E0CC1;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:38:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241])
(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 51BFCE0C01
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:38:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id z129so27355919wmb.1
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=d+lnZ9Kq+wVAcoadkp2ozOHjyS1iSIxgeUeeAk89Mlw=;
b=niPRls2BF4f7Ip/bBPX+rs+jhW/B+zV0ZoqKJloNVk7flrYMyhxfaqXPcY+x2Hz12F
e/ZSSVetg0gtTZCwTxHQ1YXCFD2A87MTTOTTKyz8feOi0WJLbLMw7EYYdO7yT/mBo3NJ
qaPFFYXGm4UIIAnAcN6SlbrriUTiLya6F9yGL9XWAOYRUD3XIrXBDxHtvFUZY/M2LWTB
rslK5lyvEnYQ/pAwnJUlLEBpetWkWDmxHm74grfWDGSQgoPSFNRio+KKNvfs2cGJN+HV
vYledp0zI/f+Bbbqyaju5NaqpWDeaVEii9+wybBSzqv13189yGPCR75zc7mStfZq+F0i
PgPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=d+lnZ9Kq+wVAcoadkp2ozOHjyS1iSIxgeUeeAk89Mlw=;
b=fjj0otnc+ZQkoSPsAoNPL88drROQtXtlV60wnPPy/3HPSIg4KqsW42IpF9oCzBBR6c
nX7Lw9I1Yb2tZhrA2Ejl0tqoB56W7SUZMl7HadfuA9d2JmbhOhZG6nwvS7ojtgXyRD8C
H02wpX9JsPvODZE/A85YJvyz5WSCE9rJdoLv9SOxlreBJ8CKZXoElEONr4z9vGJjYsdq
vkNkjL7BUDX4fMUkE4/nEw0bBUguCzFzZ20PGFWwQBBzLBBHbx8yG9QFnUv7XmIsXV7g
eArYJC/XxF/gPNwuaB3R1Ke6+LDViIjHxOGc9UswDkS4XWfYQWlpRSZR1QeA60aOhz4X
a88g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4U9ijmxesZvXYn20jLIqmFLW0mdv3jiDNRC8OWIMq2WOBgMaqx
9hTFVHXWlKajioHZGW4=
X-Received: by 10.28.59.134 with SMTP id i128mr12829914wma.49.1493145506499;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.128] (net-93-144-90-58.cust.vodafonedsl.it. [93.144.90.58])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z31sm18487106wrb.41.2017.04.25.11.38.25
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
References: <1492950948.19560.1.camel@gentoo.org>
<20170424160132.GA4479@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20170424175952.GA5202@gentoo.org>
<20170425162616.GA19042@whubbs1.gaikai.biz>
<20170425164441.GA6990@gentoo.org>
From: Francesco Riosa <vivo75@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d6d323e7-9287-c129-5d0c-cfc25454dcd3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:38:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170425164441.GA6990@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 4c16029e-b478-4de9-acb9-ebc926155e50
X-Archives-Hash: 99cba1bcf36587ddaee155d31869b0a0
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 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.
>
last time I've checked (year 2010?) gcc-2.95 was impossible to emerge
with a newer version of gcc.
gcc-3.4.6 (I'm a bit surprised) _can_ be compiled by gcc-6.3
USE="-* nptl" emerge -1 -a --buildpkgonly =gcc-3.4.6-r2
but it was released March 06, 2006.
IMHO who need these old versions of gcc for good reasons is able to use
$preferred_search_engine to find them, if toolchain overlay can be
resumed to host those.
Of the fairly extensive (but far from complete) subset of gentoo tree
installed on my machines only Nvidia/cuda stuff require gcc older than 5
and nothing require something older than 4.9
my vote would be keep:
gcc-4.{8.5,9.4}
gcc-5.4
gcc-6.3
and call it northern emisphere spring cleaning (NESC)
regards,
Francesco