On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:43 -0500, Dwight Schauer wrote: > I'd have to agree with Jan on this one. The reason why packages don't > compile on the with newer compilers is generally because the code is > not standards compliant and needs fixing anyways. So the right thing > to do is fix the broken packages in extra and move on. Then again, > I'm not an Arch Linux developer, so that is easy for me to say. > > When I download some source tarball and try to compile it and it > fails, I never go try it with and older compiler. If it is a > application/library I really need, I patch it until it compiles. > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Baho Utot<baho-utot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:51 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: > >> On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 18:46 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > >> > >> > I have encountered many packages in extra that don't compile with > >> > gcc-4.4.0. The easy way to fix them is to compile them with gcc-3.4 > >> > >> The easy way to fix them is by reporting bugs. Bugfixing most of these > >> packages is very easy and takes us only a few minutes to fix, so why > >> bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported > >> upstream for a long while? > >> > > Do you really want a list of all the packages in extra that are broke? > > > > There are lots of them > > > > Normally I would agree with you but I have about 40 that don't build and I have about 85 others that I have not looked at that don't build
