gcc-3.0 transition

[Matthias Klose]

Matt Taggart writes:

> IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.

AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been
dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet
frozen.

gcc-defaults

[Matthias Klose]

Matt Taggart writes:
 > Hi debian-gcc,
 > 
 > If I understand it correctly the gcc-defaults package allows the different 
 > architectures to specify different default versions of the various compiler 
 > bits and it gets all the dependencies right.

yes, that correct. the intention is to have only _one_ gcc, which
cannot be changed as an alternative. This makes it easier to identify
the compiler used (in bug reports)

 > Is this working?

at least for gcc-2.95 ;-)

 > I'm interested in making it work for hppa as we need to use gcc-3.0.

Please do. I can help / upload it this weekend.

Re: gcc-defaults

[Matt Taggart]

Matthias Klose writes...

> Matt Taggart writes:
>
>  > I'm interested in making it work for hppa as we need to use gcc-3.0.
> 
> Please do. I can help / upload it this weekend.

OK, Bdale got to it first. He said he will send changes when he gets it 
working.

Thanks,

-- 
Matt TaggartLinux Development Lab
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   HP Linux Systems Operation

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

[Matt Taggart]

Matthias Klose writes...

> Matt Taggart writes:
> 
> > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.
> 
> AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been
> dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet
> frozen.

Well I was just guessing it was no longer a release goal.

AJ, what's the official plan?

Thanks,

-- 
Matt TaggartLinux Development Lab
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   HP Linux Systems Operation

Bug#91940: hppa support

[Bdale Garbee]

Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 0.5

Here is the diff to add support for hppa using gcc 3.0...

ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE),hppa-linux)
V_CPP   := 3.0
V_GCC   := 3.0
V_GPP   := 3.0
V_GOBJC := 3.0
V_G77   := 3.0
V_CHILL := 3.0
V_GCJ   := 3.0
V_GPC   := 3.0
packages := c++ fortran objc
endif

Seems to work fine.

Bdale

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Matthias Klose writes...
> > Matt Taggart writes:
> > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.
> > AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been
> > dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet
> > frozen.
> Well I was just guessing it was no longer a release goal.
> AJ, what's the official plan?

See the post to -devel-announce from last month.

Basically, there aren't "release goals" per se (and haven't been since,
hmmm, hamm?). If gcc-3.0 is releasable in time (two months + however
much longer it takes to get working b-f's) it can go in, if not, it can't.

Working on it in experimental in the meantime so you can minimise the
catastrophes even if you drop it in at the last minute is probably
worthwhile...

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
  -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)


pgphCzzdQqLyz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: gcc-3.0 transition

[Ben Collins]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:56:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > Matthias Klose writes...
> > > Matt Taggart writes:
> > > > IIRC gcc-3.0 is not a woody release goal. However it would be nice
> > > > to get as many packages as possible gcc-3.0 clean. Those of us
> > > > working on the hppa port will certainly be working on this.
> > > AFAIK, gcc-3.0 was a release goal. I didn't notice that is has been
> > > dropped. Probably ok, because gcc-3.0 has branched, but isn't yet
> > > frozen.
> > Well I was just guessing it was no longer a release goal.
> > AJ, what's the official plan?
> 
> See the post to -devel-announce from last month.
> 
> Basically, there aren't "release goals" per se (and haven't been since,
> hmmm, hamm?). If gcc-3.0 is releasable in time (two months + however
> much longer it takes to get working b-f's) it can go in, if not, it can't.
> 
> Working on it in experimental in the meantime so you can minimise the
> catastrophes even if you drop it in at the last minute is probably
> worthwhile...

We may have to put it into unstable just so hppa and others can have a
supported compiler. It shouldn't cause any catastrophes since it wont be
used unless someone sets CC=gcc-3.0.

-- 
 ---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

Processed: changing severity of gcc bug

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> severity 90143 wishlist
Bug#90143: source parallelisation suggestion
Severity set to `wishlist'.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)