[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc 4.1 or not

On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:00:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) [060511 08:59]:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch.  As we're heading to
> > > freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
> > > and we want to be on time this time :), we think the switch to gcc 4.1
> > > as default should only be made if not more than 20 packages become RC
> > > buggy by it.  Also, the switch should happen latest 1.5 months prior to
> > > freeze, that is Jun 15th.
> > 
> > Additional data point: GCC 4.0 on m68k is mostly crap, and probably the
> > reason why we haven't been able to make it back as a release candidate
> > architecture yet.
> Yes, known. However, we have to consider what is worse - adding more RC
> bugginess on all arches, or being bad to one arch already having some
> (other) issues.

Yes, I understand that; I just wanted to explain for people not familiar
with the issues, that's all.

> And I think the number of 20 new RC bugs is fair to both
> sides (or that's at least what we thought when we discussed about the
> numbers).

Sure. Which is mostly why I'm suggesting to help out.

> > One: What's the easiest way to extract the list of gcc-4.1 related bugs
> > from the BTS?
> There is none I know - I asked Martin already yesterday on IRC to
> provide such a way.

Right. For now, I'll start off with suggesting upstream to have a look
at #361396 :-)

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: