I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).

As always, bugs in packages should be assigned to that package's maintainer.
Bugs in GCC should be assigned to toolchain.


--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:

I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).


revbump?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:

> On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
> > who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
> > patches added recently (see ChangeLog).
>
> revbump?

We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.


--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

On 11/21/2010 04:57 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de> wrote:


On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:

I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend everyone
who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has been some important
patches added recently (see ChangeLog).


revbump?


We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.


Why not?

> On 11/21/2010 04:57 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:38:23 +0200
> >
> > Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2010 12:46 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >>> I'm unmasking sys-devel/gcc-4.5.1 tomorrow. I'd like to recommend
> >>> everyone who has already unmasked it to rebuild it now as there has
> >>> been some important patches added recently (see ChangeLog).
> >>
> >> revbump?
> >
> > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
>
> Why not?

Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?

Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who
know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are
expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary.


--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
>
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
> what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who
> know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are
> expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary.

If you pushed important fixes to gcc, you should revbump it before
unmasking it.

If you skip the revbump, I'm sure most users will miss this.

There's virtually no expense to a revbump in this case. You just asked
every user currently using gcc-4.5.1 to rebuild it, isn't a revbump the
best, safest way to do that?
--
Alex Alexander | wired
+ Gentoo Linux Developer
++ www.linuxized.com

В В�к, 21/11/2010 в 01:47 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
>
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
> what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who
> know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are
> expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary.

I don't see any reasons not to revbump package even if it was
hardmasked...

--
Peter.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:47:57 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
> Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
>
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention
> to what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people
> who know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain
> revbumps are expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary.

I think users would appreciate it if you mentioned that in the mask
message. Just for the future.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

On 11/21/10 08:47, Ryan Hill wrote:
> toolchain revbumps are expensive

How expansive? More than a rebuild of GCC itself?

Best,



Sebastian