[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/gcc5
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 07:51:33PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
I have heard this. Also, though, while they say this, it's not been
clear so far whether it really translates into a practical difference
on the ground from the old versioning rules. (At least, as far as I
can see from the peanut gallery.)
My thought for the time being is that we should have lang/gcc51 and
lang/gcc52, and if by the time 5.3 appears it's clear that keeping
them all around isn't useful, we can rearrange then. Or when 5.4
appears, or whatever.
We have to first have 5.2 in pkgsrc for a while before anyone can
possibly have a substantially informed opinion on whether we also need
a 5.1 package :-/
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |