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

Re: 2.95.3 and Debian patches to 2.95.2

Followup to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-12/msg00863.html 
> What Debian calls 2.95.2 actually has a number of patches, some from
> the 2.95.2 CVS branch, some from elsewhere but generally from well-known 
> gcc developers.  Since these patches are well-tested (used to build 
> thousands of packages on half-a-dozen architectures) is seems that the 
> list should be checked for possible inclusion into 2.95.3 or (if not
> present) the main tree. 
Many of the patches are already integrated in the gcc-2_95-branch. 
See http://master.debian.org/~doko/gcc/gcc-2.95_2.95.3-2.001229.diff.gz 
for an updated "diff". 
> (This isn't a traditional diff, it creates a bunch of files which are, 
> in turn, patches, and not all of these patches actually get applied). 
> There are several small libstdc++-v2 patches that seem fine and without
> risk (get rid of warnings, throw exception instead of abort on out
> of memory if STL malloc_alloc is used).

These were submitted to the gcc-2.95.3 release manager.

> Some patches are Debian specific and some documentation patches, e.g.
> gcc-manpage.dpatch, are botches (really bad English).

Instead of complaining, send a bug report to the Debian BTS and/or fix
it in the CVS ;-) (although gcc.1 gets generated in the future).

> There are patches that are only applied for particular build platforms,
> which is Not The Way We Do Things.  I don't know what to say about these.

Many of the patches were applied when the Debian 2.2 release was frozen.
IMHO it's unsafe to apply these for all architectures when only tested
for one architecture. If you have questions about patches,
debian-toolchain@lists.debian.org is good place to contact the various
Debian port maintainers.

Reply to: