On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:45 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > Baho Utot 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 bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported 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 > > > > Filing a bug report means they will get fixed. Not telling us about > them, means they will wait until an update or rebuild is needed. > > Allan > > I can do that....if you can stand all the bug reports :) My script just finished and it found another 400+ that didn't build, that will take some time to go through to find the ones that didn't build because of gcc-4.4.0 errors :)
