Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc
- To: Matthias Klose <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Michael Cree <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Roland Stigge <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Debian Release <email@example.com>, HPPA porters <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John David Anglin <email@example.com>, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc
- From: Hiroyuki Yamamoto <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:20:30 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 529D07AE.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 529C7999.email@example.com>
- References: <529B597D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] 529C7999.email@example.com>
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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.
A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA 91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC