On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 04:14, Baho Utot<baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4
The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported upstream for a long while?
Do you really want a list of all the packages in extra that are broke?
There are lots of them
Filing a bug report means they will get fixed. Not telling us about them, means they will wait until an update or rebuild is needed.
Allan
I can do that....if you can stand all the bug reports :)
My script just finished and it found another 400+ that didn't build, that will take some time to go through to find the ones that didn't build because of gcc-4.4.0 errors :)
Packages that are already built don't really need immediate fixing unless you build all your packages from source. There are always some packages that cannot be built with current gcc/glibc/kernel/other-deps, but they work because they were built already some time ago. When such package is going to be updated due to new version, for example - either these errors are already fixed upstream, or some patching is done to fix them. So actually there won't be the need to fix all broken packages at one time. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)