On 25 August 2016 at 02:14, dani <dani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When I proposed importing gcc-5 to EPEL6 back in 04/2016 ( > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/F5JXEYPKQY77NRBCL4MNUBS3K2YYBBTU/ > ) the response was an unequivocal no, EPEL does not install to /opt/ , so it > dies right there. > > Now you are proposing the same ( devtoolset/scl installs to /opt except for > the wrapper call) but using a scheme that is somewhat less convenient (In > scl the binutils and gcc have to be coupled, and as noted the imported gcc > suite is incomplete), much less frequent (the most updated version is > gcc-5.2, while I maintain both gcc-5.x and gcc-6.1), and much less complete > (I import everything but gcc-gnat, while devtoolset4 only has gcc,gcc-c++ > and gcc-gfortran. No gcc-objc, no gcc-go, no cpp, and none of the libs > (cilk, gccjit, atomic, asan etc...). > > I'm still building and maintaining both gcc and bintutils for my own > purposes, which are based off of fc24 srpms, and with optionally gcc-c++ > specs file hardcoded to use binutils tools at the new prefix so use of > env-modules is not required. > > I'm just wandering why the different treatment - the automatic knee-jerk > reaction of dismissal to a newbie proposal vs. accepting the exact same > proposal (although wrapped so it's less convenient to use) when it comes > from someone else. > You are misreading both responses. There is no knee-jerk acceptance and there wasn't a knee jerk dismissal because you were a newbie. Please don't find malice where none was intended. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
