Richard Fish wrote: >> That won't be necessary. Things mostly works, and when they don't, >> users file a bug like the aforementioned one, which should result in >> that particular ebuild getting fixed, instead of the bug being marked >> INVALID. > > The thing is, "this particular ebuild" isn't actually broken. Or I > guess if it is, then so are <some_potentially_large_number> other > ebuilds in the tree, since they probably won't build with old gcc > versions either. Ok, most would probably build with gcc 3.3. And > maybe even gcc 3.1. But 2.95?? Handling this at the ebuild level is > just not a good solution for the general case. > > -Richard
Well yeah, there's nothing broken w/ the ebuild. And xine-lib is _not_ the only thing that just bombs out on sucky compiler version, see fex. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121501 There's no sane way to force users to switch their gcc version, so messing w/ ebuild deps, profiles or keywords of outdated gcc versions won't help... -- jakub
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
