David Sainty <david.sainty%gmail.com@localhost> writes: > On 28/09/15 14:54, Greg Troxel wrote: >> David Sainty <david.sainty%gmail.com@localhost> writes: >> >>> E.g. If you are installing X, which likes GCC 4.5 and up, but it >>> buildlinks in Y which adds a requirement for GCC 4.8 and up, then the >>> final selection has to be GCC 4.8 and up. >> The real question is to what extent the compilers are ABI compatible, or >> not. It seems generally they are. But then there's using e.g >> gcc49-libs. I am curious if you think the no-mixing rule is only about >> packages that use gccXY-libs, or if it's more general. > > I think gccXY-libs is perhaps the primary source of pain. I'm not > totally sure I've seen anything that didn't boil down to that. This is pretty scary, because it inherits up and down; when building something you not only have to match dependencies, but also things that depend on you. That feels intractable, and leads to "just build everything with gcc 4.8 (or some higher version)". So maybe we should just do that. > But GCC_REQD does need to be a list, because there may be a > GCC_REQD+=4.5 in the current package, and another GCC_REQD+=4.8 in a > buildlink somewhere. Or, we require something different in bl3, like setting GCC_REQD.foo and having the code union them. That is quite an easy diff!
Description: PGP signature