Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc
- To: Hiroyuki Yamamoto <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael Cree <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Roland Stigge <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Debian Release <firstname.lastname@example.org>, HPPA porters <email@example.com>, John David Anglin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <email@example.com>, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc
- From: Matthias Klose <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:14:17 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 529C7999.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <529B597D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <529B597D.email@example.com>
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current status, please correct me if I'm wrong.
- alpha, no feedback, CCing Michael Cree.
- hppa, no feedback, CCing John David Anglin
- ia64, no feedback, likely to be removed.
- powerpc, found some feedback from the porters, but unrelated to
toolchain issues, see
- powerpcspe, no feedback, CCing Roland Stigge.
- ppc64, no feedback
- s390x, pending upload
- sparc, no feedback
- sh4, no feedback, doesn't build, CCing Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Am 01.12.2013 16:45, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
> Source: gcc-defaults
> Version: 1.123
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
> Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc,
> because FTBFS of many packages occur by e.g. c++11
> on ports which stayed using gcc-4.6 and g++-4.6,
> ia64, powerpc, s390x, sparc, alpha, powerpcspe, ppc64, sh4.
> And using unified version of gcc must bring happiness
> to many package maintainers.
> On the other hand, I understand that this changing depends on
> the correspondence status of gcc porting,
> so I leave decision to you.
This is a decision for the porters. If there are no active porters, there
shouldn't be a port.
> Unfortunately, building gcc-4.8 source package on sh4 has not succeeded yet,
> so here is a patch which changes gcc-4.8 using on ports except sh4.