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

Re: ARM toolchain is not up-to-date



On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:47:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 06:31:01PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Some of the ARM buildds are still not using G++ 4.1 as the default C++
> >> > compiler, nearly two months after the default was changed.  I already
> >> > reported this over a month ago to arm@buildd.debian.org, but it's
> >> > still unfixed.  That is the correct address, isn't it?
> >> >
> >> > Please could all the ARM buildds be updated to use the current
> >> > toolchain?
> >> 
> >> Shouldn't sbuild automatically install the latest build-essentials by
> sorry, typo:                                         build-essential
> >> itself?
> >
> > No; updating the chroot is the buildd maintainer's job.
> >
> > This is a good thing; there've been cases where I manually downgraded
> > specific toolchain packages because of bugs like #327780, and I wouldn't
> > want sbuild to go ahead and upgrade things like that without my explicit
> > instruction.
> >
> > (Of course, that's ignoring the fact that sometimes build-dependencies
> > pull in new versions of those libraries. Whatever)
> 
> I'm not proposing sbuild should upgrade the chroot fully every time. Just
> the build-essential package. Having an arch build with a completly
> different gcc when all of debian has switched is, well, stupid.

True.

> Build-essential has e.g.
> 
> Depends: libc6-dev | libc-dev, gcc (>= 4:4.1.1), g++ (>= 4:4.1.1), make, dpkg-dev (>= 1.13.5)
> 
> That ensures some minimum versions of the tool-chain but not the
> specific versions. If an release arch has no suitable version within
> those constrains then there is something seriously wrong.

Right. I guess a patch would be welcome ;-)

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



Reply to: