We have all this:

gcc-12-cross
gcc-12-cross-ports
gcc-13-cross
gcc-13-cross-mipsen
gcc-13-cross-ports
--------------------
gcc-14-cross
gcc-14-cross-mipsen
gcc-14-cross-ports

I think we should try to get rid of all packages above the line,
as no package in Debian depends or build-depends on them.

(We keep old regular gcc releases in a stable release when some package
really needs it, but AFAIK that's not the case here).

Thanks.

Hi Santiago,


We're already trying to get rid of gcc-12, but src:shim still builds
against it. We hope we'll manage before the release.

To be able to remove them in practice, you need to ensure that they are
not in the key-package set. Solving that problem enables us to remove
them. As I understand it (I admit I don't fully), the cross compilers
are key because their non-cross siblings are key. It could a bug in the
calculation, I recall the cross binaries having the same names as their
non-cross version but on different architectures, but I vaguely
understand that they are really intertwined.

Having said all that, why do *you* think those packages should be
removed and why didn't you go to the maintainer, but came straight to us?

Paul

El 1/6/25 a las 14:54, Paul Gevers escribió:

They are very big, they have very big build times, and they are in general
a burden for QA.

Every time I do an archive rebuild to check for any thing, I have to include
those packages so that the archive rebuild is complete. Otherwise I would
be unable to say, for example, "there are exactly 50 packages in trixie which will FTBFS
if the apt cache is removed before the build" (to put a recent real life example).

The idea of filing a bug against release.debian.org with the GCC maintainers in the Cc
(initially X-debbugs-Cc) was to have a discussion between all involved parties,
not just the release team.

Please keep the GCC maintainers in the Cc.

Thanks.

El 1/6/25 a las 15:20, Santiago Vila escribió:

And of course the normal user of those packages should be able to use
the gcc-14-* variants instead. In other words: I don't see why they are needed at all.

Thanks.

I don't see any QA burden.

well, Santiago feels harassed as seen in the "Proposed MBF: packages
that FTBFS with make --shuffle" thread, but is harassing other people to
remove stuff what he doesn't like...

if you want to be productive, get the gcc-12 package removed for trixie,
but as long as these older versions are still used, I don't see any need
to remove the cross compilers.

packages with long build times *can* very well be a burden on QA and other
things, like testing migration tests and reproducible builds tests, as
well as on the humans maintaining those systems. they also use up non-endless
resources.

generally the burden is less the more useful those packages are.