Re: Bug#818781: r-base: non-standard gcc/g++ used for build (gcc-4.9)
On 6 April 2016 at 18:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
| On 2016-03-25 09:05, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > On 25 March 2016 at 14:20, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
| > | Le mercredi 23 mars 2016 à 15:32 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| > | > On 23 March 2016 at 21:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
| > | > | On 23.03.2016 20:05, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > | > | > I just looked at /etc/R/Makeconf where CC, CXX, ... get encoded and they are
| > | > | > not versioned (ie NOT gcc-4.9) so I am pretty sure we are not using 4.9
| > | > | > anywhere but on mips.
| > | > |
| > | > | unfortunately mips is still a release architecture.
| > | >
| > | > Rock, meet hard place.
| > | >
| > | > Seb: Any advice? Has this been fixed? Do we need to get Aurelien and the
| > | > mips folks involved?
| > |
| > | As explained by Aurelien Jarno in <20160211081127.GA1073@aurel32.net>,
| > | this is indeed a kernel issue.
| > |
| > | A patch exists, but I don't know if it has been applied on buildds. I
| > | guess you should contact Aurelien directly.
| >
| > Thanks!
| >
| > Doko: what do you want me to do here? Remove the gcc-4.9 invocation used
| > only on mips, and hence loose mips? Won't the package then get tossed from
| > all other architectures?
|
| All the mips build daemons no have a fix. It is therefore fine to remove
| the build-depends on gcc-4.9 and build the package with the default GCC
| on all architectures.
Will do. In fact, I just updated it in my sources.
We are currently creating approximately-weekly builds of beta, then rc, then
release tarballs of R leading up to the release of R 3.3.0 which is scheduled
for May 3. [1] As I just made a release this morning, this will affect the next
build in a few days.
Dirk
[1] There are transition issues on Windows with an (overdue !!) upgrade of
the toolchain to g++-4.9.3 that upstream needs some extra time with. The
release was originally planned for next week.
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: