On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>> The intent to get GCC changed was mentioned in the bug reports a month ago. > >> Seeing the number of new bug reports that keep popping up I still think > >> the switch should be reverted. It was bad enough with all the month old > >> bugs still open, but with many new ones (plus the misbuilds) I really > >> don't think it's reasonable to waste yet more time on this. > > which ones? are there any reports which are not tagged? I went through the list > of Lucas' new batch and tagged the appropriate ones. > There were again some more in the last couple days. They should be tagged AFAIK. > Which misbuilds are you aware of? I don't see any tagged? > I'm aware of syslinux. I assume there will be others. > > This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gcc-4.7 in wheezy as an alternative, > > just that it is highly problematic as the default at this point of the release > > cycle. +1 on the revert from me, sadly. > > in summary, these are getting addressed faster than these are submitted. Please > lets wait until the end of June if to make this decision or not. > Hell no. End of June is when we'll be frozen. Not when we'll keep messing around with big toolchain changes. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature