Bug 162219

Summary:	FC4 release notes should mention how to use gcc32
Product:	[Retired] Fedora Documentation	Reporter:	Julius Smith <jos>
Component:	release-notes	Assignee:	Release Notes Tracker <relnotes>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Tammy Fox <tammy.c.fox>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	devel	CC:	gajownik
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-07-22 21:30:52 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	151189

Description Julius Smith 2005-06-30 21:36:10 UTC

Description of problem:
Many tarballs from the Web do not compile because gcc 4.0 is so new (and strict).

I suggest adding the following info to the FC4 release notes in the "Caveats"
subsection of section "6.3.1. GCC Compiler Collection"

* When compiling source that has not yet been upgraded to gcc-4.0 compatibility,
the earlier gcc-3.2 compiler can be used.  It can be installed via

yum install compat-gcc-32

and many makefiles can be invoked with "CC=gcc32" to use it.  Also, many
INSTALLs can be configured to use it as follows:

./configure --cc=gcc32

Additional info:

From: Rahul Sundaram <sundaram>
Reply-To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list>
To: jos.edu, For users of Fedora Core releases
<fedora-list>
Date: Jun 30, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

Julius Smith wrote:

>On 6/30/05, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram> wrote:
>
>
>>If the software doesnt work with either gcc 3.2 or gcc 4.x then its
>>probably broken. GCC 4.x is there as the primary compiler. compat-gcc-32
>>for legacy support. I am not sure what else could be done better here.
>>any ideas?
>>
>>
>
>This has  been working very well for me.  However, it took me a while
>to figure out that I needed
>
>yum install compat-gcc-32
>./configure --cc=gcc32
>
>It would have been nice to have this info in the FC4 release notes
>near then end of the section "6.3.1. GCC Compiler Collection", or
>perhaps in the "Caveats" subsection.
>
>Julius
>
>
>
great idea. Kindly file it against fedora-docs and we will have a
release notes errata
- Hide quoted text -

regards
Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Comment 1 Julius Smith 2005-06-30 21:43:09 UTC

This is essentially a duplicate of Bug 162217 (a couple of typos were fixed in
this version). I apologize for the accidental double posting.

Comment 2 Karsten Wade 2005-06-30 21:47:15 UTC

reassigning to release notes tracker

Comment 3 Karsten Wade 2005-06-30 21:47:56 UTC

*** Bug 162217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Paul W. Frields 2005-06-30 22:11:26 UTC

If we do this, should we include also compat-lib{gcc,stdc++}-296?  This provides
(IIRC) compatibility for Red Hat Linux 7.3 apps.

Comment 5 Julius Smith 2005-07-01 02:44:56 UTC

For that, how about a new section of the release notes entitled "Backward
Compatibility", organized in reverse-chronological order?  In that case, the
"Caveats" subsection of Section 6.3.1 could simply point to the beginning that
section.  I would probably insert it as a new Section 7.

Comment 6 Dawid Gajownik 2005-07-11 08:22:06 UTC

Please don't forget about CXX variable. Some code does not also compile with g++
from gcc-c++-4.0.0 package (for example tvtime â
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1230713&group_id=64301&atid=506987).

Comment 7 Tommy Reynolds 2005-07-19 04:21:02 UTC

Added to CVS.  Close this one.

Comment 8 Karsten Wade 2005-07-22 20:45:19 UTC

Updated content a bit and included this in a recent publishing of the online
release notes:

http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/errata/

Comment 9 Rahul Sundaram 2005-08-29 10:03:13 UTC


The information above seems to be misleading. The errata does not include a
section on backward compatibility. If an errata for this purpose is deemed to be
unimportant, We should make this a point for the subsequent versions