Summary: | emerge cccc failes compiling with gcc 3.4.1-rc3 and rc2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Roland Bramm <roland> |
Component: | [OLD] Development | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | dragonheart, esigra |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | GCC 3.4 compile fix |
Description
Roland Bramm
2004-09-20 04:18:19 UTC
Created attachment 60135 [details, diff]
GCC 3.4 compile fix
This should fix the compile errors, if you bump the package to 3.0_pre84.
Upstream looks kind of dead though, and this package needs a maintainer.
This package needs a maintainer. fixed - thanks. *** Bug 128109 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** This bug should have been fixed 2005-06-08 according to a comment here, but why did I still get the bug with a freshly synced Gentoo 2006-03-30? It seems like the fix got lost on the way. Reopen? (In reply to comment #5) > This bug should have been fixed 2005-06-08 according to a comment here, but why > did I still get the bug with a freshly synced Gentoo 2006-03-30? It seems like > the fix got lost on the way. Reopen? As I've noted on the duplicate bug, it's fixed in _pre84, *not* in _pre63. (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > This bug should have been fixed 2005-06-08 according to a comment here, but > > why did I still get the bug with a freshly synced Gentoo 2006-03-30? It > > seems like the fix got lost on the way. Reopen? > > As I've noted on the duplicate bug, it's fixed in _pre84, *not* in _pre63. Great, but as I said, the fix did not propagate to the distribution. Emerge still tries to build the broken version eventhough I have synced today. So the bug still exists IN THE DISTRIBUTION. The issue can not be considered fixed until the broken package has been replaced by the fixed package. (In reply to comment #7) > > As I've noted on the duplicate bug, it's fixed in _pre84, *not* in _pre63. > > Great, but as I said, the fix did not propagate to the distribution. Emerge > still tries to build the broken version eventhough I have synced today. So the > bug still exists IN THE DISTRIBUTION. The issue can not be considered fixed > until the broken package has been replaced by the fixed package. Sigh... emerge _pre84, it's FIXED. _pre63 is NOT fixed and won't be fixed... Anything unclear, still? (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > > As I've noted on the duplicate bug, it's fixed in _pre84, *not* in _pre63. > > > > Great, but as I said, the fix did not propagate to the distribution. Emerge > > still tries to build the broken version eventhough I have synced today. So the > > bug still exists IN THE DISTRIBUTION. The issue can not be considered fixed > > until the broken package has been replaced by the fixed package. > > Sigh... emerge _pre84, it's FIXED. Yes, I know that the package _pre84 itself is fixed. No need to discuss that any more. Thank you for taking care of that part of the problem. > _pre63 is NOT fixed and won't be fixed... Yes, I know that the package _pre63 is NOT fixed. And I do NOT expect that particular package to be fixed. No need to discuss that anymore either. > Anything unclear, still? I tried to be clear, but I try to rephrase it: What is not fixed is the DISTRIBUTION itself. It should be fixed by replacing the broken package with the fixed package. A user typing "emerge cccc" encounters a failure, which he should not. In other words, "emerge cccc; echo $?" does not print "0". Only when "emerge cccc; echo $?" prints "0", the problem as a whole can be considered fixed. The problem is that emerge tries to build the broken version if no version number is specified. The problem is NOT in cccc-3.0_pre84.ebuild, but in the file that controls which ebuild is used by default. ZOMG. The problem we are discussing here is fixed. If you want cccc 3.0_pre84 marked stable, then file a *new* bug for keywording. Won't happen anyway most likely, since now it doesn't compile with gcc-4 (Bug 111619). This ebuild needs a maintainer and version bump. No point in moaning here, kindly do 'echo dev-util/cccc >> /etc/portage/package.keywords' and be done with it. CLOSED. (In reply to comment #10) > ZOMG. The problem we are discussing here is fixed. Then there was a misunderstanding. My bug report (bug 128109) was labeled "emerge cccc fails" without reference to any particular ebuild. It therefore covers every problem that needs to be fixed for "emerge cccc" not to fail on a system with default settings, including problems with keywording. Since my report was marked as duplicate of this report, I concluded that this report also had the same broad scope as my report. Therefore I did not realize that the scope of this report does not cover keywording problems. > If you want cccc 3.0_pre84 marked stable, then file a *new* bug for > keywording. Since I already did that, I will clarify my new report to explicitly request 3.0_pre84 to be marked stable. Then there will hopefully be no doubt what it is about. > Won't happen anyway most likely, since now it doesn't compile with gcc-4 (Bug > 111619). Possibly, if the current default version works with gcc-4. But if _pre63 also fails with gcc-4, there is no reason to to keep it as the default version. Upgrading to _pre84 would fix the problem for users of the default gcc version while not making anything worse for gcc-4 users, since it is already broken for them. > 'echo dev-util/cccc >> /etc/portage/package.keywords' I did, but for the rest of the world it would be nice if it works out of the box. And if changing a keyword is all that is needed... |