From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 12 04:35:43 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 5615A806; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:35:43 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: [CFH] FreeBSD 10 and ports Message-ID: <20130612043543.GA2081@FreeBSD.org> References: <249D4A03-A62A-4033-9757-AF308D4422FF@FreeBSD.org> <20130611192156.GU3047@kib.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130611192156.GU3047@kib.kiev.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "ports@freebsd.org Ports" , Martin Wilke X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:35:43 -0000 On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:21:56PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > What you are proposing is de-facto forking the whole open-source code > base. This cannot work, and in fact steals the FreeBSD resources for > something which has absolutely no relevance for FreeBSD project. >From what I see there is currently just over 1K ports failing, and not all off them are due to Clang. This number is perfectly manageable to solve within several months timeframe. Quite a fraction of those Clang-failing ports (judging from the commit logs) are solvable by passing -Wno-foobar to CFLAGS. So I think a real fix is needed for a few hundreds of ports. > Ports should not be forced to use clang, either a ports gcc work > should be finished, or cc in HEAD switched back to gcc. This is > de-facto blocker for the 10.0. Ports should build with any compiler, ideally. Those ports who fail should be fixed, or marked as GCC-only as a last resort. ./danfe