| Summary: | sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0-r3: Stabilization | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | David Seifert <soap> |
| Component: | Stabilization | Assignee: | Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers <toolchain> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | alexander, ansla80, arthur, asturm, dflogeras2, dimgel, kensington, kroemmelbein, O01eg, pacho, tamiko, thomas.bettler, toralf, toto, whissi |
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
| Version: | unspecified | Flags: | stable-bot:
sanity-check+
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: |
=sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0-r3
|
Runtime testing required: | Yes |
| Bug Depends on: | 536984, 581058, 586052, 588890, 601014, 604306, 604832, 604838, 604960, 605126, 605154, 605162, 605226, 605242, 605510, 605594, 605608, 605862, 605896, 605954, 606592, 606778, 606872, 606960, 607006, 607496, 608474, 609046, 609058, 609060, 609062, 609064, 609066, 609068, 609072, 609074, 609076, 609078, 609080, 609082, 609084, 609086, 609088, 609090, 609092, 609094, 609096, 609098, 612828 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 606372, 608566, 611782 | ||
|
Description
David Seifert
2016-12-20 22:26:32 UTC
Dear Maintainer (or who is mainly involved in this stable request), This is an auto-generated message that will move the current component to the new component Stabilization. To ensure that the stabilization will proceed correctly, please fill the fields "Atoms to stabilize" and "Runtime testing required" as described here: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4b2ef0e9aa7588224b8ae799c5fe31fa build and installed =sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0 on stable amd64. Used it to build a new kernel and booted it. Rebuilt the packages that "revdep-rebuild --library 'libstdc++.so.6' -- --exclude gcc" wanted me to rebuild, which was 22 packages. So far all is well. ok built =sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0-r2 on my stable amd64 machines and I'm now using that without issue. On one of them I've rebuilt the kernel and the same packages I did with 5.4.0. we're not stabilizing a version just added, and is a weird snapshot. see bug 604084 for tracking of -r2. (In reply to SpanKY from comment #4) > we're not stabilizing a version just added, and is a weird snapshot. see > bug 604084 for tracking of -r2. Fine by me. I was just testing what was asked of me. I've been using 5.4.0 longer than I've been using -r2. I'd personally be happier to have a 5.4.0 + small patch to fix the one bug than a big snapshot release as well. I would ping Toralf for running a *stable* tinderbox with this gcc-5 version to ensure all needed packages are stabilized before :/ (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #6) /me is doing that, 2 images runs now, 2 more will follows, nore or less the fall outs are as of today : net-im/pork-0.99.8.1 media-sound/toolame-02l-r3 x11-plugins/wmifs-1.3_beta1-r2 (In reply to Toralf Förster from comment #7) > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #6) > /me is doing that, 2 images runs now, 2 more will follows, nore or less the > fall outs are as of today : > net-im/pork-0.99.8.1 media-sound/toolame-02l-r3 > x11-plugins/wmifs-1.3_beta1-r2 Thanks... but it seems you are running a "testing" (I mean, ~amd64 tree in your case) instead of a "stable" tree + gcc-5 For this case I would opt for that one for catching the packages we need to stabilize before and also ensure you are not hitting issues unrelated to gcc-5 update but caused by other testing package :/ (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #8) my english ... I do run 3 *stable* images mow with just gcc-5.4 as the unstable package. There are unstable packages which do have the fix for gcc-5, but their older stable package versions are not fixed. The package *names* above are examples - if I didn't overlooked something too in these particular cases. (and I have to update the logic of the tinderbox scripts, which usually do not report bugs in older packages, if the same issue was already reported for newer packages). There's definitely something wrong with at least some packages. As I understand, all stable packages in current tree must be stable and be able to be build with GCC5 before GCC5 will go stable itself. For example, this bug is now fixed and resolved: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604838 But current stable version kdevelop-pg-qt-2.0.0 cannot be built with GCC5 and new release of this package kdevelop-pg-qt-2.0.0-r1 must go stable before GCC5 itself can go stable. Not sure if this is the cause but since this update my system is freezing. I wished for GCC-7 in unstabl to break my system. I geuss i should be more careful what i wish for. (In reply to C.J. Wijtmans from comment #11) > Not sure if this is the cause but since this update my system is freezing. Almost certainly unrelated. The difference from gcc-5.4.0-patches-1.0.tar.bz2 to gcc-5.4.0-patches-1.3.tar.bz2 is only this one patch: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/79a00c21567bb5e7a8868a25aa5b3b87cae6f0a9 Is there an ETA for stabilization? [1] The currently blocking bugs all seem to be minor issues. [1] Stabilization of gcc-5* seems to be long overdue (given the fact that almost all major Linux distributions are on gcc-5*, or gcc-6* by now. https://repology.org/metapackage/gcc/versions https://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-6.html amd64 stable x86 stable arm arm64 ppc ppc64 stable. bug 601014 affect also another stable version of gcc, so it doesn't hurt stabilize gcc-5 for ia64. ia64 stable alpha stable Stable for HPPA. ping sparc sparc stable (tested by Dakon) Last arch. Closing. |
