From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 22 11:25:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id AAF2D10656A4; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:25:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:25:42 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Gerald Pfeifer Message-ID: <20100822112542.GB58812@FreeBSD.org> References: <201008201617.o7KGHVAG037310@repoman.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201008201617.o7KGHVAG037310@repoman.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc45 Makefile distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:25:42 -0000 On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:17:31PM +0000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Replace NOT_FOR_ARCHS by ONLY_FOR_ARCHS. [1] > > Suggested by: linimon I don't really see the point. Ideally, any port (including gcc) should work across all architectures. If the port inherently cannot work on some arch (meaning it is not simply BROKEN there, but cannot be possibly fixed without e.g. total rewrite, or if it is binary-only, etc.), it can be marked IGNORE (old way) or (ONLY|NOT)_FOR_ARCHS (new way). Common sense would suggest that the one that requires shorter list of words should be picked; other thing to consider is will the list grow (in case of binary port, NOT_FOR_ARCHS is obviously not the best choice in this regard), or it would rather shrink (desired situation for open source software, since ideally it should work everywhere). Looking at committed change, it appears that list length remained the same (three words); alpha was dropped (which is correct since we do not support it these days). At this point NOT_FOR_ARCHS wins 2:3, but since nothing was said about about other Tier 2 arches (arm and sun4v), it is hard to tell if usage of ONLY_FOR_ARCHS is justified by n:m ratio. Now, since GCC is open source software, I believe it could/should be fixed to work on every Tier 1/2 arch; which means that ONLY_FOR_ARCHS will grow. In this light, the change is controversial at best. I'd like to hear Mark's rationale for [1]. ./danfe