On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 04:14, Baho Utot<baho-utot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 bother supporting an old outdated compiler that hasn't been supported 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 :) Packages that are already built don't really need immediate fixing unless you build all your packages from source. There are always some packages that cannot be built with current gcc/glibc/kernel/other-deps, but they work because they were built already some time ago. When such package is going to be updated due to new version, for example - either these errors are already fixed upstream, or some patching is done to fix them. So actually there won't be the need to fix all broken packages at one time. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
