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

Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

sorry, can't help with this. setting up a pbuilder or sbuild, and start building
packages from the base system?


Am 13.05.2014 03:26, schrieb David Gosselin:
> I'm in the same boat as Patrick, except with a PowerMac G5. Please let us know how to begin. 
> Thanks,
> Dave
>> On May 12, 2014, at 16:02, Patrick Baggett <baggett.patrick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Matthias et al,
>> I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I get. Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem to "just know" what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn. Where do I start?
>> Patrick
>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
>>> With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
>>> the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
>>> architectures.  The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already
>>> point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures.  Issue #746805 tracks the
>>> gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version
>>> change.
>>> The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in
>>> bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in
>>> March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2].  Another
>>> test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other
>>> compiler regressions on these architectures.
>>> I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot
>>> packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild
>>> for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite
>>> look okish for every architecture.
>>> I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated.
>>> Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions
>>> e.g. #746883).  Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be
>>> found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g.
>>> Fedora 21).
>>> If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to
>>> make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May,
>>> beginning of June.
>>> Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8)
>>> will be filed.
>>>   Matthias
>>> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
>>> [2]
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
>>> --
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>>> Archive: [🔎] 536BA1CE.9070106@debian.org">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 536BA1CE.9070106@debian.org

Reply to: