Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/gcc5

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:36:00PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> It's a fair question, but gcc has a long history of people needing
> multiple versions.  So the notion that just because there isn't an
> articulated reason today for 5.1 instead of 5.2 does not make me
> confident that there will not be a reasonable need.  Perhaps things have
> gotten better.

It's just that I heard that the gcc people want to switch their
versioning and get rid of the smallest version part. If that holds,
5.2 is to 5.1 what 4.9.2 is to 4.9.1 and we wouldn't need all that
many versions.

I don't have a link to such a statement though.

> Separately from whether we also have 5.1, I tend to think 5.2 should be
> named gcc52, because I suspect that when 5.3 comes out, it won't be
> reaasonable to just update it and tell everyone whose stuff breaks with
> 5.3 that it's their fault.  But again, my experience is based on
> watching the 4x series and perhasp things are different.

If I'm mistaken, then we probably should go this way.
 Thomas