On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches > > > don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a supported > > > compiler in Gentoo. > > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla > > ... > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with what we have now. see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ? as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred to keep users from breaking themselves also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation by simply deleting them: rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/* and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the situation i referred to earlier > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing > > this behavior > > > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i > > really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+ > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it > is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be called > "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread > started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain about > now.) you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really see how you could have expected this to be fixed already i'll update cvs when i get a chance -mike
pgpC3qwT1Y3nm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
