Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

On 09/11/2012 11:15 PM, Mark Linimon 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.

Write the day on your calendars folks, I completely agree with what Mark
said above. :) This is a big part of what I meant with some of my more
colorful comments in my original post on this topic.

Doug