Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 12 Sep 2012, at 10:15, Mark Linimon <linimon_at_lonesome.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
>> At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports
>> build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to.
> 
> I think this is a mis-representation.
> 
> Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding an
> ex-post-facto requirement.  This creates the following matrix of what
> we are implicitly asking maintainers to do:
> 
> (FreeBSD 7|8|9|10) * (amd64|arm|i386|powerpc|sparc64) * (base gcc|base clang)
> 
> It is completely insane to expect anyone to be able to test in all of those
> environments, or even a tiny subset of them.  This isn't what most people
> sign up for when they sign up to maintain ports.
> 
>> Those who don't run CURRENT won't notice, but those who do will have to
>> get their butts up and fix the ports
> 
> I think it's foolish to assume that maintainres don't have their butts in
> gear as it is.  Please note, we have nearly 1300 PRs, hundreds of ports with
> build errors and/or PRs, and hundreds that fail on -current only.  I try to
> advertise all these things the best I know how.  Adding the hundreds that
> fail on -clang only and then blaming the maintainers is simply going to be
> counter-productive.

I'd also guess that FreeBSD ports is probably the biggest exposure clang
has ever seen to 3rd party code. I can't think of any other project 
except maybe macports who try to run clang over some much 3rd party code and 
so FreeBSD  ports is hitting all the bumps in the road that most people get
to ignore.

- Mark