Dne 10.7.2018 v 09:42 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a):
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 06:37, David Tardon <dtardon(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
[..]
>> My proposition is *not* to add gcc/g++ explicit to BuildReequires and
>> use instead glibc-devel and libstdc++-devel modifications and ban use
>> gcc/gcc-c++ in BuildRequires (in most of the cases all current
>> gcc/g++
>> BuildRequires could be replaced by glibc-devel and libstdc++-devel).
>> All because it is not possible to use C compiler without glibc-devel
>> and C++ compiler without libstdc++-devel.
> It might be a surprise for you, but there are other implementations of
> C and C++ standard libraries. If I try to imagine Fedora wanting to
> switch to clang in the future,
It is not but it is quite interesting how you are trying to move
technical discussion to kind of "argumentum ad hominem" field.
> I can very well imagine it wanting to
> switch to libc++ at the same time... So your "improved" proposal is,
> in fact, just as arbitrary and choice-limiting as the one you
> criticize.
So you want to tell that putting explicit gcc/gcc-g++ BRs makes such
switching (which is less important) or test build (which is way more
interesting and valuable options) easier and/or opens some option?
Really?
Explicit "BR: gcc" definitely does the switch to other compiler easier,
because one of the main question for this change was actually "how many
packages actually requires C/C++" and it was quite tricky to answer such
question. Now it will much easier.
And of course if we can switch from no requires to "BR: gcc", then it
won't be harder to switch to "BR: clang". If we were going to switch to
another compiler, it even gives us the choice so selectively stay with
gcc , where previously it could be ambiguous which compiler is used ....
BTW I am deliberately not going to read the rest of you email, because
it is simple too much words.
V.