Summary: | Does glibc-2.3.6 really need gcc-3.4 ? Why ? Shouldn't it be documented ? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Honza <hkmaly> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | VERIFIED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | 2006.0 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Honza
2006-06-17 03:59:57 UTC
Yes, it's really needed; too many bugs filed about issues caused by outdated gcc. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml Bugs with glibc, or bugs with unrelated packages ? Is it like when you put gtk-2.8 in firefox dependencies (see bug #135923) ? Can you answer my other questions ? Is it possible to run program which use both libstdc++ (one itself, one in library) ? I don't suppose so, but I don't want to spend whole week recompiling packages and solving bugs ... I personally didn't spot "obsolete gcc"-related problem yet. (In reply to comment #2) > Bugs with glibc Bugs when compiling glibc. > Can you answer my other questions ? Bugzilla is for bugs, for questions there's IRC or forums.g.o. ;) > Is it possible to run program which use both libstdc++ (one itself, one in > library) ? I don't understand the above... > I don't want to spend whole week recompiling packages and solving bugs ... Read the gcc upgrading guide. > I personally didn't spot "obsolete gcc"-related problem yet. Bug 121501, Bug 129776, Bug 132122... > > Can you answer my other questions ? > > Bugzilla is for bugs, for questions there's IRC or forums.g.o. ;) > Really ? :-( > > Is it possible to run program which use both libstdc++ (one itself, one in > > library) ? > > I don't understand the above... > Like when I have some game using new libstdc++ and SDL, which is using old libstdc++. > > I don't want to spend whole week recompiling packages and solving bugs ... > > Read the gcc upgrading guide. > I did. revdep-rebuild is still recompiling and it don't protect me from bugs either. At least I doubt no package will need to be upgraded to newer version. I have VERY old packages. > > I personally didn't spot "obsolete gcc"-related problem yet. > > Bug 121501, Bug 129776, Bug 132122... > At least I see I'm not the only one who prefer longer working compilers ... |