On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 10:38:03AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Pierre Labastie wrote: > > > Shouldn't we add an entities &gcc6-tested, &gcc6-built and add those to > > the package descriptions when tested? > > That's a good idea. We did it with gcc5. I'm not sure though that we need > to differentiate between built and tested. I'm pretty confident that > gcc5_checked is enough. > > <!ENTITY gcc6_built "<para>This package is known to build > properly using the gcc-5 compiler.</para>"> > > When we go through the next release cycle, that would be removed and we > check everything then anyway. >
Sounds good, (s/gcc-5/gcc-6/) but I would prefer to wait a little to see if the problem is only with upgrading from gcc-5. > Speaking of the next release, I'm tempted to call it 8.0 using Linus' > rationale: it's just time for that. It's been 5 years since 7.0. > > Thoughts? > To me, that sounds very like treating it as a decimal. At least linus only rolls the version somewhere around .20. Or we could join the firefox/chrome version fight - new number for every release ;-) But it is only a number, even on those days when we want to call it 666. Putting gold in would probably be worthwhile. In theory firefox-46 should work out of the box with gold, but I no longer have a gold system. No idea about the other package Pierre mentioned. Meanwhile, there are problems with nss-3,23 : on -support we had a problem report for i686 (I think firefox failed to compile with system nss), and now (gcc-5) qt5's qtwebengine (skipped in the book, but qupzilla says it needs it) fails to compile. For this some fixes went in upstream, but I have not yet tested them (there was a report that they did not fix it for someone). I see we are all having so much fun! ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
