-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:10:48 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > Not true. According to the 2006.0 x86 profile, for example, you're > | > required to have ">=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1". There is no requirement > | > that 3.4 be installed. > | > | Yeah, that's not what I've been talking about at all, what's your > | point? I was saying that gcc-3.4 and better is stable everywhere > | where it's needed. How does it change that 3.3 is dead as a nail in a > | lamproom door and users should switch to something that we actually > | can support? > > Tradition for toolchain stuff has always been that anything allowed by > the profile is considered acceptable for general use. So, if users > shouldn't be using 3.3, the profile should be changed to say so. Until > then there's no obligation to upgrade. >
Then it seems like that 2006.0 x86 profile should be updated (without waiting for 2006.1 to be released). Dunno if other arches have to run such legacy gcc versions, but the logical thing is to point to 3.4.x instead on x86. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEsYLBrsJQqN81j74RAidcAKCGdhpAiObclSZuwR8Heod1wqK9yQCgmI16 ax6u8GA7z9GQEkdqErq8xD4= =0VzK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
