Re: GCC 4.2 transition

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

* Matthias Klose (doko@cs.tu-berlin.de) [070720 12:49]:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be built
> > > > before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they don't build correctly yet,
> > > > and I am (still) waiting for an upstream comment on how to fix it.
> > 
> > > The change is done in unstable. Unstable have no security support.
> > > Should I assume you don't know how to properly build packages for a dist
> > > which is not unstable?
> > 
> > He might be referring to the fact that xulrunner has been out-of-date on
> > mips* for over a month now due to build failures that look like they are
> > probably a gcc bug, thereby preventing security fixes (and updates to 27
> > other significant packages) from reaching testing.
> 
> He was asked to report back results with a recent gcc-snapshot; did I
> miss an answer?

Yes.

http://bugs.debian.org/428582:
| Plain upstream gcc head appears to work, gcc-snapshot fails to build
| with ICE. 



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/