On 18 February 2018 at 20:52, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [..] >> Yesterday I've replayed on your proposal but I've not realized that my >> reply was held by the moderator. >> You started introducing changes only after less than 24h after >> publishing proposal. >> It does not make any sense sending any proposals if you will be not >> waiting for feedback at least few days :-/ > > I didn't introduce any changes, I just made mass rebuild and asked people to > fix their packages. Gosh .. you are right. Really sorry :-/ After spotting +1k new emails notifications I did not check who made those changes and I've been thinking that it was some mass change introduced by one of the proven packagers. It does not look good if people before finishing discussion on *proposal* will be making changes :-/ Or maybe everything has been triggered not by the proposal but by this thread which has in the Subject "[ACTION NEEDED]" ? [..] >> Q: does it really needs to be gcc? What about clang? >> A: theoretically it does not need to be gcc .. especially as macros >> like %cmake, %configure are injecting over CC, CXX and other variables >> exact commands. > > Yes, theoretically. I think the real reason is because we want explicitly to > use GCC and nothing else. Looks like this intention has not been verbalised in the proposal. Here few questions related to such intention. If Fedora provides more than one C/C++ compilers and both are in the main part of the distribution -> Why Fedora packages must be glued statically to gcc/gcc-c++ as C/C++ compilers? Maybe there are more unverbalised intentions related to such assumption? Or maybe it is something wrong with clang? I'm asking because I don't know anything about such issues. FreeBSD is using now clang/llvm to compile everything so it would be a real surprise if it is already some known big issue. [..] > Are you willing to work on Guidelines Draft for FPC on this? Right now I just > want to get rid out of gcc/gcc-c++ in buildroot and I chose following > **existing guidelines** as a base for this while what you are proposing > requires coordination with FPC. I've drafted only some idea which was not complete. Have no idea where did you get this that I'm willing anything. > I'm not against this idea at all, but this is totally outside of scope of this > change. In any case, once we will have necessary BuildRequires all over the > place we can easily replace them with whatever we will decide is correct. This is not about arrogance. If you will be just stopping reading after the first sentence you are exposing yourself to miss something. In this first sentence literally was that what is below is out of the scope of the proposal. In reply where only a few humble question and asking for few seconds to consider modify original scope to open some new possibilities. Now looks like it is to late and changes already started :-( kloczek PS. If you really don't like my comments just add my email to spam filters and let me know about this in prv email. I promise that I'll never reply to any of your emails. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
