On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:27:14 -0700 Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----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. I don't believe retro-actively modifying the 2006.0 profile is a good idea in general. The profile currently says that for x86, gcc must be ">=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1" - if you do # emerge >=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.4-r1 on a current tree you'll get a much higher version. Still, it's up to releng if they wish to change it. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
