Re: What is the default gcc version ?
> On Jun 29, Yann Dirson (ydirson@altern.org) wrote:
> >
> > Despite the build-essential list and gcc-defaults package pointing to
> > gcc 3.3, at least 6 archs still used 3.2 this week (alpha ia64 powerpc
> > m68k mips mipsel) and buildds on s390 and hppa still do not print the
> > toolchain versions, so I can't tell for those 2 ones.
> >
> > That's half of our archs looking out of sync with the "policy" or
> > whatever dictates the gcc version to use. I suppose there may be good
> > reasons for those to avoid 3.3 (in which case that should be reflected
> > in build-essential and gcc-defaults), or the buildd's should be
> > upgraded.
> >
> > Can anyone please shed some light on this issue ?
The default gcc is defined by the gcc-defaults package. This
is architecture specific. As far as I understand, the default is gcc-3.3
on all arch but sparc-linux where it is 3.2.
> I'd like to know this, too. I recently fixed some bugs on m68k (a painful
> experience) and the most recent bug reports are basically "the bug you closed
> is reoccurring". If the compiler I'm using to test my fixes is different than
> the one used to build the package, that might be the reason.
The problem is you cannot know which version of gcc/gcc-default was
used by the buildd.
Recent sbuild (>=1.170) print something like
Toolchain package versions: binutils_2.14.90.0.4-0.1 gcc-3.3_1:3.3-3
g++-3.3_1:3.3-3 libstdc++5_1:3.3-3 libstdc++5-3.3-dev_1:3.3-3
libc6-dev_2.3.1-17
in the build log, but the m68k buildd q650 is still using sbuild
(1.169).
To work around that, you can add something like
gcc --version
in your debian/rules.
As for the specific problem, I guess you are speaking of #199013. I
agree with you that there is something strange: simply rebuilding
jade on crest fix the problem, but the autobuilt package is buggy.
Maybe there is something wrong inside the buildd.
I would advise you to add a check that nsgmls is basically working
with libsp in debian/rules, so that buggy packages are not uploaded.
At least this will give us the option to build it manually on crest
until the issue is sorted out.
Cheers,
Bill.
Reply to: