Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> Could you please rename gcc5 to gcc52 and recover gcc 5.1 under the >> name gcc51? I need both. > > For the curious audience -- why do you need both? > Thomas > > (it's extra effort for the gcc packages because they have accompanying mk/ changes) It's a fair question, but gcc has a long history of people needing multiple versions. So the notion that just because there isn't an articulated reason today for 5.1 instead of 5.2 does not make me confident that there will not be a reasonable need. Perhaps things have gotten better. Separately from whether we also have 5.1, I tend to think 5.2 should be named gcc52, because I suspect that when 5.3 comes out, it won't be reaasonable to just update it and tell everyone whose stuff breaks with 5.3 that it's their fault. But again, my experience is based on watching the 4x series and perhasp things are different.
Attachment:
pgpGLUACB8K8U.pgp
Description: PGP signature