Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> IMO, this was a bad and non-helpful decision. They should not have
> pushed any GCC-5 "this late in the cycle" and should have waited with
> pushing GCC-5 to rawhide until F22 is release.
+1
We have never done a GCC bump without a mass rebuild before, not even where
there were no C++ ABI changes involved.
> Right now, we are facing packages whose (non-gcc related) F22-bugs are
> unfixable because the issues w/ GCC-5 F23 are propagating through.
Time to revert GCC (with Epoch bump) to 4.9 in F22?
> - the implicit default c-standard seems to have changed. I am facing
> packages to whom I now have to add -std=c89 or -std=gnu89 to let
> building succeed.
>
> [BTW: One family of packages which is victim of this change is GCC-4,x
> itself. Older versions seem to require -std=gnu89]
Right, this is listed in the caveats list.
> - the GCC version numbers have changed, which is causing FTBFSes in
> poorly implemented packages which somewhere depend on hard-coded GCC
> version numbers.
That's an issue too.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
