On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM, David Chisnall <theraven_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich <decke_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > >> I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious >> problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the >> portstree for all ports that are unable to build with clang which was introduced >> when HEAD switched to clang as default cc. Right now there are 150 ports in >> the tree that use this fallback and quite a few of them are high profile ports: >> >> the highlights: >> audio/nas devel/mingw32-binutils emulators/qemu emulators/virtualbox-ose >> emulators/wine lang/go lang/v8 mail/courier math/fftw3 multimedia/libxine >> multimedia/gstreamer multimedia/gstreamer-plugins multimedia/x264 >> security/clamav >> >> the full list: >> http://dpaste.com/1354075/ >> >> A possible hack could be to add a check for USE_GCC=any to behave like >> a USE_GCC=yes on HEAD on the affected platforms. This pulls in lang/gcc >> from ports for a lot of people on HEAD I suppose. >> >> We certainly need to do that switch to remove the ancient gcc from base >> some time but with my portmgr hat on I can only say we don't plan to do that >> before 10.0 especially not if we are only talking about a few weeks time window. > > That is unfortunate. We have said for over a year that 10.0 should not ship with gcc. I can delay committing the patch to flip the switch until later in the code slush, if re approves, but ports that require gcc should be building with gcc from ports (which will also improve code quality, as gcc 4.6/7 produce significantly better code than 4.2.1). I have asked the question of "when will gcc be removed from base" multiple times over the last year and I got varying results back with the majority saying "after 10". I'm just trying to say that It looks like some people in src also don't expect it to be removed in 10. Anyway bapt already did some testing without gcc in base on HEAD and the results were bad but not totally awful. We will see if we can fix the most important ones in time before 10 but we can't promise anything. If someone wants to have a look at the failures with no gcc in base on HEAD: http://pb2.nyi.freebsd.org/bulk/nogcc-default/2013-08-04_01h01m20s/ (this also includes HEAD failures caused by clang) -- Bernhard Froehlich http://www.bluelife.at/Received on Fri Aug 23 2013 - 09:21:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:40 UTC