Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/gcc5

[Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25.07.2015 19:51, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:36:00PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> It's a fair question, but gcc has a long history of
>> peopleneeding 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.
> 
> It's just that I heard that the gcc people want to switch their 
> versioning and get rid of the smallest version part. If that
> holds, 5.2 is to 5.1 what 4.9.2 is to 4.9.1 and we wouldn't need
> all that many versions.
> 
> I don't have a link to such a statement though.
> 

The tarballs are called: gcc-5.1.0.tar.bz2 and gcc-5.2.0.tar.bz2.

Another odd thing is that there is no 5.0(.0).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=kSb3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----