On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:52:46 -0400 Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. What smooge said. ;) The reason SCL's are under opt is that they got a namespace approved for that purpose: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Limited_usage_of_.2Fopt.2C_.2Fetc.2Fopt.2C_and_.2Fvar.2Fopt "Currently, we have allocated /opt/fedora/scls, /etc/opt/fedora/scls, and /var/opt/fedora/scls for use by Software Collections. " Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to propose here again? Just epel6? or 7 as well? Do you have co-maintainers in case you get busy, etc? I think we are all open to ideas how to do things better, but it's really not clear what is best or even exactly what is proposed. ;) kevin
Attachment:
pgpMNqIf5_dO4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
