On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:24:56 +0530
Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <bpradip(a)in.ibm.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2015 08:52 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
[snip]
>
> There's also conversations to be had as to had as to whether we move
> all archtectures to gcc-go or wait for golang 1.5 in (probably) F-23
> and just use that. It's too late for F-22 cycle anyway IMO.
>
Will it be acceptable to have gccgo for ppc64 and s390x archs only
based on relative stability of gccgo over golang ? Or it's completely
unacceptable to have different set of build tools based on archs ?
Just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts here.
I think it is acceptable to let the secondary architecture maintainers
decide what toolset they will use if they both provide same functions,
but differ on the set of supported arches. The prerequisite is that
mainline Fedora agrees on rules that will allow (or enforce) using some
set of macros instead of hard-coded compiler in the spec files by
writing that in the Go packaging guidelines.
Dan