[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: More mass rebuilds for GCC



> > > > As you'll notice, there will be lots more packages bumped for the rebase
> > > > to gcc.  Most completed today, but we'll be working through a list of
> > > > failures over the next couple days.  Things will still be in a bit of
> > > > flux, but we're working on it.
> > > >
> > > > Java is still being worked on too.  Getting the java stack built with
> > > > gcj is a great accomplishment and I really respect our java and gcj team
> > > > for putting in the work to further the free java.  Please bare with us
> > > > as we finalize the development changes necessary to accomplish this
> > > > task.
> > >
> > > Does the new GCC introduce any run-time/ABI breakage which requires
> > > packages in Fedora Extras Development to be rebuilt? Or does it only
> > > reveal problematic source code?
> >
> > I think all the extras need to be rebuilt for this. I know seahorse
> > for one needs it (and may need some fixes).
>
> AFAIK, seahorse was affected by SONAME changes in some of its
> dependencies, which made a rebuild necessary. That was a change not
> related to the GCC upgrade. My question is not about ordinary breakage
> through upgrades of dependencies.

Yes, I think that's true but I also think there is some gcc41 rebuild
issues with it too (well there seems to be when I just try to rebuild
the srpm. I think the binaries produced by gcc 4 and 4.1 are
compatible so most things won't need to be rebuilt, but then its
probably good for them to be rebuilt too.

Pete


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]