On May 6, 2016 1:57 PM, "Ken Moffat" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > Most of these issues are happening on pure systems as well (all of the ones that I discovered in a previous posting were). I might end up upgrading one system from 5 to 6 and seeing if issues arise there also.
> > 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). > Qtwebengine will be interesting. I don't have LXQt in systemd, so I don't have Qupzilla. I was considering adding it though. I wonder if we just have to force it to use C99/C++98 like we have to for other packages. When I build Qt5 tomorrow (I hope), I will try that and report back. Douglas R. Reno
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
