Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/gcc5

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

From: Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>, Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:51:33 +0200

> 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.

According to the following web page, GCC people changes version numbering
scheme.
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html

5.1.0 is the first release from GCC 5 branch.
5.2.0 is the second release from GCC 5 branch.

If someone really needs lang/gcc490 and lang/gcc491,
I will create lang/gcc51 and lang/gcc52.

>> 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
> 

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3