On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: >> >> We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top 10 ports that prevent >> the most other ports from compiling together prevent 2222 ports from >> compilation. So if we fixed those 10 ports we could be at around 2500 ports >> not compiling. Thats quite far from your claim of forking 20k programs. > > Sorry, I cannot buy the argument. How many patches there are already > in the ports tree to cope with clang incompatibility with gcc ? You may > declare that all of them are application bugs, but it completely misses > the point. [ snip ] >> I believe majority of the broken ports is broken because their maintainer >> never saw them being broken with clang just because it's not the default >> compiler. Thus by making it the default majority of the problems would just >> go away. > > Can you, please, read what I wrote ? Fixing _ports_ to compile with > clang is plain wrong. Upstream developers use gcc almost always for > development and testing. Establishing another constant cost on the > porting work puts burden on the ports submitters, maintainers and even > ports users. This is a good point! -- DEReceived on Tue Sep 11 2012 - 13:35:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:30 UTC