On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Otavio Salvador > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Andre McCurdy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:21 PM, akuster808 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> why do we continue to maintain 2 versions of gcc? >>> >>> Probably the same reason why Buildroot continues to maintain 4 >>> versions of gcc, it's useful for end users. >>> >>> https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/gcc >> >> We keep all user space and toolchain up to date so upgrading the GCC >> is straightforward. That said the gcc cannot vary from one machine to >> another so if a vendor wants to use an old release, it can be done >> using their distro. >> >> I am against maintaining two GCC versions as it increases the amount >> of testing needed. Instead I'd prefer to have clang merged on oe-core >> instead and easy its adoption / test. > > In practice, there are a large set of applications that customers have porting > to do when major compiler version changes (e.g. 6 to 7), unless there > is a feasible path for upgrade people > will refrain from upgrading to newer versions of releases. Its not a > trivial task > to upgrade systemdwide compiler in any distro. So its a good strategy to have > two versions overlapping for few releases, this smoothens the migration for > large application bases.
Agreed and rocko has this; for 2.5 we don't need to provide two versions one more time. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
