Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:23 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Biru Ionut schrieb: Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu, but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections? Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore. virtualbox recommendation are gcc3.3 or later except for the GCC 4.0.x series). GCC 4.3.3 is recommended. i've tried to compile with gcc 4.4.0 and is failing. i suggest to move it to community because there are severals packages[1] that have in makedepends gcc34. [1] http://dpaste.com/55327/ If you want this, let this go to aur-general. I am removing the packages from extra now, but I'll leave the PKGBUILDs in SVN trunk for now, so any TU who wants to adopt this or any AUR user who wants to add this can access them. I adopted it and put it in AUR: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27768
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
Excerpts from Baho Utot's message of Mo Jun 15 03:14:10 +0200 2009: I can do thatif you can stand all the bug reports :) I hope you understand that the problem is with upstream (if the package won't compile because the source is not standards compliant), so it should be reported there and not on arch's bugtracker.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 04:14, Baho Utotbaho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: Baho Utot wrote: On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4 The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported upstream for a long while? Do you really want a list of all the packages in extra that are broke? There are lots of them Filing a bug report means they will get fixed. Not telling us about them, means they will wait until an update or rebuild is needed. Allan I can do thatif you can stand all the bug reports :) My script just finished and it found another 400+ that didn't build, that will take some time to go through to find the ones that didn't build because of gcc-4.4.0 errors :) Packages that are already built don't really need immediate fixing unless you build all your packages from source. There are always some packages that cannot be built with current gcc/glibc/kernel/other-deps, but they work because they were built already some time ago. When such package is going to be updated due to new version, for example - either these errors are already fixed upstream, or some patching is done to fix them. So actually there won't be the need to fix all broken packages at one time. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 09:07 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Baho Utot schrieb: I can do thatif you can stand all the bug reports :) My script just finished and it found another 400+ that didn't build, that will take some time to go through to find the ones that didn't build because of gcc-4.4.0 errors :) You could collect them in one bugreport instead of opening a separate one for each. All of these packages have been built at some point, so it is likely they worked with gcc 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 (unless they are ancient and haven't been rebuilt much longer than that). Most of them probably worked with 4.3. Once we have to rebuild these packages, we fix them to compile with the current compiler - which is very easy most of the time. If you are building our whole repositories, you will probably find those problems before we do. I really don't like these collection bugs that contain bugreports for 400 packages with the same problem. Some get fixed, some don't get fixed, we lose track and after a while it gets closed with message probably fixed, open new one if you find more.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
Roman Kyrylych schrieb: Packages that are already built don't really need immediate fixing unless you build all your packages from source. There are always some packages that cannot be built with current gcc/glibc/kernel/other-deps, but they work because they were built already some time ago. When such package is going to be updated due to new version, for example - either these errors are already fixed upstream, or some patching is done to fix them. So actually there won't be the need to fix all broken packages at one time. From his messages to this list, it seems Baho has actually been rebuilding our complete repository. It is convenient to have those fixes applied. But I would rather have Baho report the problems and fixes upstream to the projects instead of here. Most projects will gladly fix any compile problems with recent compilers. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 09:07 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Baho Utot schrieb: I can do thatif you can stand all the bug reports :) My script just finished and it found another 400+ that didn't build, that will take some time to go through to find the ones that didn't build because of gcc-4.4.0 errors :) You could collect them in one bugreport instead of opening a separate one for each. All of these packages have been built at some point, so it is likely they worked with gcc 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 (unless they are ancient and haven't been rebuilt much longer than that). Most of them probably worked with 4.3. Once we have to rebuild these packages, we fix them to compile with the current compiler - which is very easy most of the time. If you are building our whole repositories, you will probably find those problems before we do. That is exactly what I am doing. I am compiling the whole lot to run native on AMD. Core usually compiles just fine with little or no problems, extra has lots of problems from bad URL to PKGBUILD that are not standard to gcc problems.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu, but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections? Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore. virtualbox recommendation are gcc3.3 or later except for the GCC 4.0.x series). GCC 4.3.3 is recommended. i've tried to compile with gcc 4.4.0 and is failing. i suggest to move it to community because there are severals packages[1] that have in makedepends gcc34. [1] http://dpaste.com/55327/ -- Ionut
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
Biru Ionut wrote: Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu, but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections? Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore. virtualbox recommendation are gcc3.3 or later except for the GCC 4.0.x series). GCC 4.3.3 is recommended. i've tried to compile with gcc 4.4.0 and is failing. i suggest to move it to community because there are severals packages[1] that have in makedepends gcc34. wrong list: http://dpaste.com/55329/ -- Ionut
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:23 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Biru Ionut schrieb:
Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Can we kill gcc3 and gcc34 from extra? We used to need them for qemu,
but that's fixed, so they're useless. Objections?
Move it to AUR. We don't need these anymore.
virtualbox recommendation are gcc3.3 or later except for the GCC 4.0.x
series). GCC 4.3.3 is recommended.
i've tried to compile with gcc 4.4.0 and is failing.
i suggest to move it to community because there are severals packages[1]
that have in makedepends gcc34.
[1] http://dpaste.com/55327/
If you want this, let this go to aur-general. I am removing the packages
from extra now, but I'll leave the PKGBUILDs in SVN trunk for now, so
any TU who wants to adopt this or any AUR user who wants to add this can
access them.
-1 from me
IMHO I would like it to see them stay in extra
For example : imlib which has errors compiling with gcc-4.4.0
compiles fine with gcc-3.4
just fixup the PKGBUILD like this:
# $Id: PKGBUILD 356 2008-04-18 22:56:27Z aaron $
# Maintainer: dorphell dorph...@archlinux.org
# Committer: Judd Vinet jvi...@zeroflux.org
pkgname=imlib
pkgver=1.9.15
pkgrel=4
pkgdesc=General image handling library for X11 and Gtk
arch=(i686 x86_64)
url=http://www.enlightenment.org/Libraries/Imlib.html;
license=('GPL')
depends=(gtk libungif libpng libtiff libsm)
makedepends=(gcc34)
source=(http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/imlib/1.9/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.bz2
debian-bug448360.patch CAN-2004-1026.patch
aclocal-fixes.patch)
options=(!libtool)
md5sums=('7db987e6c52e4daf70d7d0f471238eae'
'5f9da697934b6bd3b497ac9160ce4f5c'
'b273d36aa60adbfaacaf6062234e4c1f'
'33b832f0dc6c9723cd0dfe9c8d0a6797')
build() {
cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-$pkgver
patch -Np1 -i ${startdir}/src/debian-bug448360.patch || return
1
patch -Np1 -i ${startdir}/src/CAN-2004-1026.patch || return 1
patch -Np0 -i ${startdir}/src/aclocal-fixes.patch || return 1
./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc --enable-shm
CC=/usr/bin/gcc-3.4 make || return 1
make DESTDIR=$startdir/pkg install
}
and it works
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
Baho Utot schrieb: -1 from me IMHO I would like it to see them stay in extra For example : imlib which has errors compiling with gcc-4.4.0 compiles fine with gcc-3.4 Every normal package can be fixed to compile with the latest gcc, the right way is always to do that, not to stick to legacy compilers (besides, imlib must have built with 4.3.0, so the issue must be a minor non-standard-compliance in the code). qemu was an exception because its code generators relied on the way gcc3 generated the code. About virtualbox, it probably suffers from similar problems. But those are special cases - imlib is certainly no reason to keep a legacy compiler. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:13 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Baho Utot schrieb: -1 from me IMHO I would like it to see them stay in extra For example : imlib which has errors compiling with gcc-4.4.0 compiles fine with gcc-3.4 Every normal package can be fixed to compile with the latest gcc, the right way is always to do that, not to stick to legacy compilers (besides, imlib must have built with 4.3.0, so the issue must be a minor non-standard-compliance in the code). qemu was an exception because its code generators relied on the way gcc3 generated the code. About virtualbox, it probably suffers from similar problems. But those are special cases - imlib is certainly no reason to keep a legacy compiler. I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4 The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported upstream for a long while?
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4 The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported upstream for a long while? Do you really want a list of all the packages in extra that are broke? There are lots of them
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
I'd have to agree with Jan on this one. The reason why packages don't compile on the with newer compilers is generally because the code is not standards compliant and needs fixing anyways. So the right thing to do is fix the broken packages in extra and move on. Then again, I'm not an Arch Linux developer, so that is easy for me to say. When I download some source tarball and try to compile it and it fails, I never go try it with and older compiler. If it is a application/library I really need, I patch it until it compiles. On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Baho Utotbaho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4 The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported upstream for a long while? Do you really want a list of all the packages in extra that are broke? There are lots of them
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Kill old gcc versions
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: Baho Utot wrote: On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4 The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported upstream for a long while? Do you really want a list of all the packages in extra that are broke? There are lots of them Filing a bug report means they will get fixed. Not telling us about them, means they will wait until an update or rebuild is needed. Allan I can do thatif you can stand all the bug reports :) My script just finished and it found another 400+ that didn't build, that will take some time to go through to find the ones that didn't build because of gcc-4.4.0 errors :)
