On 09/22/16 20:07, Moritz Klammler wrote:
> Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> In-tree only the versions that download_prerequisite picks are
>>> tested and guaranteed to work.
>> I was made aware today that my recent patch for pr49905 broke
>> bootstrap with MPFR 2.4:
>>    https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01507.html
>> In light of this risk and given that the recommended MPFR version
>> is still 2.4 I wonder if the download_prerequisites script shouldn't
>> instead download the minimum supported version.  That way those of
>> us working with MPFR but not intimately familiar with its version
>> specific details would have an easier way of avoiding such breakage.
>> Alternatively, perhaps the script could be extended to make it
>> possible to choose between the most recent and the recommended
>> versions of the prerequisites that GCC is intended to work with,
>> and people who make use of either in their code encouraged to
>> test with both.
> As some of you might already be aware of, I'm currently trying to get a
> new version of the `contrib/download_prerequisites` script approved that
> will verify the checksums of the tarballs it downloads and also provides
> additional options.  If it is considered useful, I could add an option
> to it that would do what you suggest.  Am I understanding correctly that
> we have a "minimum", "recommended" and "most recent" version for each
> dependency and that the script currently uses the "most recent" one?  If
> the feature is wanted, all I'd need is somebody to tell me the version
> numbers.

No, the problem is, that these packages are not designed for in-tree
builds but for stand-alone.  Likewise they are not designed for
cross-target builds.  So for each version there are different
work-arounds necessary from the toplevel configure scripts.

And until I updated that top-level script, only the very old versions
did *actually* work on all targets.


Reply via email to