Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-27 Thread Andrew Savchenko
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:27:08 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > > > older

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-27 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > > Hi, > > > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > > older than the 4.9 branch. > > > > Masking is fine; some time later

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-26 Thread Walter Dnes
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:32:21AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote > Except that "switching back" from gcc-5 to gcc-4 doesn't really work, > and that gcc-4 will happily use gcc-5 libraries, with unintended > consequences. It can be done, but it takes a little work. I do a contributed build

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-26 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 02:37:17 CEST schrieb Francesco Riosa: >> 2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel : >> > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-26 Thread Michał Górny
On śro, 2017-04-26 at 11:42 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > > The most important goal of having the packages masked is that it would > > cause Portage to verbosely complain whenever the users have it > > installed. With appropriate comment (displayed by

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-26 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Michał Górny schrieb: The most important goal of having the packages masked is that it would cause Portage to verbosely complain whenever the users have it installed. With appropriate comment (displayed by Portage), we could clearly inform users that they need to upgrade gcc and switch to a new

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2017, 02:37:17 CEST schrieb Francesco Riosa: > 2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel : > > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-25 Thread Francesco Riosa
2017-04-26 0:26 GMT+02:00 Andreas K. Huettel : > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > > Hi, > > > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > > older than the 4.9 branch. > > > > Masking is fine; some time later

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-25 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > Hi, > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > older than the 4.9 branch. > Masking is fine; some time later (maybe in a few months) I'd even suggest masking all of gcc-4. After all, unmasking

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-25 Thread Francesco Riosa
On 25/04/2017 18:44, Guilherme Amadio wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote: I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree. GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-25 Thread Guilherme Amadio
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26:16AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote: > > > > I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree. > > GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also for development. > > I already had

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-25 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:59:53PM +0200, Guilherme Amadio wrote: > > I would rather prefer to keep essential development tools in tree. > GCC is not only used as system compiler, but also for development. > I already had problems before with CMake being aggressively removed, > so I couldn't just

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-24 Thread Guilherme Amadio
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:01:32AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 02:35:48PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > > older than the 4.9 branch. > [...] > > My solution > > === > > > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-24 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 02:35:48PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > older than the 4.9 branch. > > > The problem > === > > Gentoo users still sometimes try to build new packages with old gcc > versions which

[gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc

2017-04-23 Thread Michał Górny
Hi, I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular older than the 4.9 branch. The problem === Gentoo users still sometimes try to build new packages with old gcc versions which inevitably fails, either due to bugs or missing features in the old versions of gcc.