On 28-04-2015 15:00, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:58:26AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> If I update a package version, e.g. for biber-2.0, I will build it >>>> both on a 7.7 system, using gcc-4.9.2, and also on a newer system >>>> built with gcc-5. And tag it for both. >>>> >>>> The first priority for everybody should be to keep a working system. >>>> Anybody who updates to gcc-5 in-place is likely to have problems, >>>> particularly in C++. >>>> >>>> As you say, my approach does reduce our ability to commit upgrades. >>>> >>>> Perhaps there is a better way of doing this ? >>> >>> Just use the gcc tag and delete the 7.7 tag. Until we do a complete >>> rebuild >>> of BLFS using gcc5, the -dev book will be in an inconsistent state, but >>> that's the nature of -dev. >>> >> I was thinking more of Fernando's problem - I've persuaded him to >> back out gcc5 to reduce problems with his current system. So, once >> things are tagged with gcc5 he doesn't want to upgrade a version and >> drop back to a 7.7 tag. >> >> Me, I can run multiple systems on different machines. I'll be >> starting a fresh build sometime this week on one of my main >> machines: for that the prime purpose will be to test biber-2.0 with >> gcc5, on texlive-2014. By the time texlive-2015 comes out, that >> build will be redundant. That's fine by me. > > I agree that the most comprehensive solution is to have two systems, one > for 7.7 with gcc-4.9.2 and one for gcc5. If a package is built on both, > then mark for both. However that's not strictly necessary. Either one > is fine for an update of the -dev book. Just mark accordingly.
Thank to you both. As you might have already noticed, I decided to take the risk of keeping gcc-5. "If I can do everything fine today and considering that I have solved the problem yesterday, I will keep it." Well, I also remember that before this hist, I was using LFS-7.1, and there, I installed gcc-4.9.2, which seems to be similar. BTW, now I understand that several problems I had there and blamed new bash were most probably due to the new gcc. Reason I don1t do like Ken: first my scripts are individual. For each package-version I have a package-version.sh. And I keep all old ones in an "old" directory. This lets me compare when things get wrong. However, this makes building a new system very slow, so, my work updating packages is much better than when I need to start building a new system for tagging. And the consequence is always a lot of tickets accumulated. Therefore, if I run in trouble and have to build a new system, at least I tried to avoid it. All these lines are the result of much thought since yesterday, after Ken's post. Thanks again, and please, wish me good luck. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
