Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Removing bloat from Debian?

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Frank Bauer

Removing bloat from Debian?

#1 Post by Frank Bauer »

As we are nearing Sarge release and discussing if it will fit on one double-sided DVD, I made a look at Sarge archive.

Why do we have to have gcc272, gcc295, gcc3.2, gcc3.3, gcc3.4? I understand gcc272 and gcc295 are 'good old reliable buddies', but three verions og gcc3?

Another example: automake 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9???

gstreamer and its pile of plugins: 0.6, 0.8.

Isn't there time to reconciliate these versions to just one, sometimes two working versions?

Best Regards
Frank Bauer

User avatar
peschmae
Posts: 75
Joined: 2004-09-16 18:02

#2 Post by peschmae »

Maybe, but for gcc, some apps only can be compiled with one version (e.g. openoffice afaik only works with gcc 3.2).
I don't know about gcc 2.7.2 and who needs that though.

Same for automake - some apps require 1.4, others 1.9 yet others don't mind the version...

Peschmä
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell

User avatar
startx
Posts: 172
Joined: 2004-09-16 12:14
Location: london

#3 Post by startx »

well, as far as i see, you need an older gcc to compile a newer version of gcc. for example, to compile any gcc-3.x you will need some former gcc-3.x.
same to the 2.9 serias. i admit i am just guessing, but this could be a reason for keeping several versions ....

@peschmae: hi, know you, eh?
debian squeeze for everyday life, many other versions for the rest

Jeroen
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Posts: 483
Joined: 2004-04-06 18:19
Location: Utrecht, NL
Contact:

#4 Post by Jeroen »

startx wrote:well, as far as i see, you need an older gcc to compile a newer version of gcc. for example, to compile any gcc-3.x you will need some former gcc-3.x.
same to the 2.9 serias. i admit i am just guessing, but this could be a reason for keeping several versions ....
No, the only requirement is that packages need to be rebuildable. It's allowed to have gcc that can only be rebuilded with itself. For example, ghc6 itself is also only buildable if you have a working ghc first.

The rationale is that buildable is to satisfy DFSG, one needs to be able to make changes to a package. That you cannot bootstrap it easily, is another point, and not required.

Post Reply