(Not commenting on the whole message, just parts.) On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:46:24PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > You can however fix the tree to make sure it will fully build without > those flags, and then talk to Mike again about removing them. I am sure > he might be more willing if it will not steal his time again.
I ask again: would such patches be accepted? (Mike stated he would remove stubs once GCC 4.1 is stable -- thanks -- so users wouldn't run into problems often regardless.) > Vanilla, Gentoo patched - they all have bugs which bugzilla have more > than enough of in. Ah yes, I see some that definitely apply to USE=vanilla builds. I'll see if there's anything I can understand. :) > OK, maybe I was just too dense to see it before, or maybe you kept > dancing around the issue. To put it clear (or try at least), your whole > issue currently is that you cannot use a 'Vanilla' gcc (ie without the > stubs) to build everything in the tree ? No, being able to use vanilla GCC as Gentoo's system compiler would be a nice addition, and if it's agreed as a good idea I don't mind helping out with getting it working, but I can live without it. > And not as much the stubs them selfs ? Being able to check software for unofficial compiler flags is for some cases a must. I repeat: two separate issues. They keep getting mixed up here. > I think you understood wrongly. > > If the stubs were to be just removed say tomorrow, and breakage in the > tree is still of such an extend that bugs starts to flood in again, its > not just you that will have to read the mail. If the user is clueless, > then Jakub have to reassign the bug to either toolchain or the package > maintainer. If he could not determine it was due to the missing CFLAG, The error is very clear: cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-fno-stack-protector" Maybe I have a little bit more confidence in people, sorry if that's misplaced. :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
