Re: gcc 4.1 or not
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> * Andreas Barth <email@example.com> [2006-06-04 21:01]:
> > As we are below the 20 packages count if bug #366820 is correct (and
> > Martin just confirmed the number), it is ok to do the switch now.
> > Martin, can you please also mark these bugs as serious now (as
> > they're FTBFS then)?
> Yes, we have been under 20 bugs for a while now. Most of the
> outstanding bugs fall into two categories:
> - bugs that have been fixed upstream and are now waiting for a new
> - packages that have other RC bugs and cannot be uploaded
> Fortunately, the former is the majority. All maintainers of these
> packages are aware of the importance of these bugs and I'll continue
> to pester them. ;-)
> While I've been building the archive with gcc 4.2 recently, I've
> haven't done a re-run with 4.1.1 yet. Matthias uploaded the packages
> a few days ago and they passed NEW today so I'll do it this week.
> I don't expect many new issues from this though. Furthermore, I
> assume that some of the packages that passed through NEW might not
> build with gcc 4.1 but again that should not be a show stopper.
> I found one serious bug in 4.1.1 though (#370308) which needs to be
> fixed before 4.1 can be the default (since it produces a bogus error
> on some Perl headers which get included by many packages). Matthias
> is aware of this and is (I think) working on an update already (one
> single patch needs to be reverted). gcc-defaults can be changed after
> a new 4.1.1 package enters the archive.
4.1.1-2 uploaded. I'll upload a new gcc-defaults with a build
dependency on that version tomorrow.
> In terms of architectures, there wasn't terribly much feedback from
> the porters.
right, we did see most feedback from the non-release architectures.
> However, I have done full archive rebuilds on a number
> of the architectures in the meantime and it looks good. I might have
> missed a bug or two since I didn't investigate each error in detail
> this time but I think most errors I ignored where generic build
> problems or something related to the new X.
> The status, as far as I'm concerned, is the following:
> arch status tests
> + alpha good full archive rebuilt
> + amd64 good full archive rebuilt
> ? arm unknown untested
> ? hppa would benefit from 4.1 (abi); untested
it requires 4.1 (or removal of 4.1); architecture specific abi
changes. all packages depending on libgcc2 need to be rebuilt. once
the required packages are rebuilt, libgcc4 will need to conflict with
> + i386 good full archive rebuilt
> ? ia64 unknown untested
> + mips good full archive rebuilt
> + mipsel see mips
> + powerpc good full archive rebuilt
> - hurd-i386 didn't build until recently; fixed in 4.1.1
> ? kfreebsd-i386 they'd like to have 4.1
> + m68k 4.1 fixes many compiler bugs
> ? s390 unknown untested
> + sparc good full archive rebuilt
> Martin Michlmayr