Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 17:20:31 schrieb Andrew Savchenko: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:11:01 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > [...] > > > (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, > > 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, > > 4.5.4, 4.6.0, 4.6.1-r1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2-r1, > > 4.7.3-r1, 4.7.4, 4.8.0, 4.8.1-r1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and (deep > > breath) 4.9.2? > > Yes, we do. There is a lot of software out there which needs > specific gcc version. E.g. I have fortran code which depends > gcc:3.4. Other example are cuda implementations which usually lag > behind mainstream gcc by one middle version.
Which gives us 3.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 at most. > And please don't say "just fix it", I'm not saying "just fix it", I'm saying "... and of course you will happily join toolchain team and/or maintain the single gcc version that you need, at your own pace". > some of such software is > binary, some other is too large to be updated regularly. Please give REASONS why things should remain maintained. So far (except for the gcc-3/hardened explanations, and for gcc-3 doing more fortran than gcc-4(??)) this is mostly mumbo-jumbo about "someone might need it", proprietary binary blobs (should we even care? if yes, why?) and similar. I'm VERY happy to hear arguments. Especially if they come with good practical and detailed examples that we all can understand. I guess we're all curious to learn about more Gentoo use cases. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer [email protected] http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
