Need help with gcc c++ issue

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Tue Feb 17 03:55:15 UTC 2015

On 02/16/2015 07:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:35:17AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> FESCo decided to not do a mass rebuild for f22, but gcc-5 (with a
>> change to config from f23) was approved to land in f22.
>>> - A GCC-5 has been pushed to rawhide and already _is_ being used to
>>> build packages and causing all kind of weird issue there. These
>>> issues also cause harm to F22, because we have a "build rawhide
>>> first" rule.
>> Yes, but as far as I know the gcc maintainers are still patching up
>> issues found via these bugs. It would be good to actually fix those in
>> gcc before we go rebuilding everything with it.
>> So, it's somewhat up to gcc maintainer(s) IMHO... when they feel gcc-5
>> is ready to rebuild everything.
> There are bugs being fixed both on the gcc side and on the side of packages,
> I think it is too early for the final mass rebuild,
I disagree.

On the packager's side, the lack of a mass-rebuild has rendered working 
with rawhide and bugfixing f22-bugs a lottery.

> but gcc should be ready
> for that in a short time.  For the gcc side of bugfixing it doesn't help
> that there is a huge delay due to extremely underpowered armv7hl builders
> - what builds in 4 hours or less on all other primary and secondary
> architectures builds for 18 or more hours on armv7hl.
My condolences - The decision to support the arm was not mine ;)

> Also, a releng mass rebuild, which I believe is a random package order,
Still no tool to launch an ordered build available?

> would very likely not help very much, due to the ABI changes one needs to
> rebuild the packages in topological order, non-C++ packages or C++ packages
> that nothing C++ depends on of course can be left for the mass rebuild, but
> ideally the rest should be rebuilt manually before the mass rebuild.
Right now, the current situation is: Random packager is rebuilding 
random package with random results and weird FTBFSes, resulting in a 
mixture of mixed ABI compiled packages inside of the repo.

A mass rebuild would at least minimize one source of problems. Wasn't it 
you who told us, to have performed a GCC-5 mass rebuild with only a few 
issues? If so, why would doing the same in rawhide not be feasible?


More information about the devel mailing list