Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:24:25 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, marino@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? Message-ID: <686179459.20140208132425@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <52F5EB97.5040603@marino.st> References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org> <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> <1955647943.20140208122042@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F5EB97.5040603@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, John. You wrote 8 =D1=84=D0=B5=D0=B2=D1=80=D0=B0=D0=BB=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 12:32:= 23: >> JM> dynamically linked libraries. >> JM> libcstd++ >> JM> libgfortran >> JM> libquadmath >> JM> libssp >> JM> libgcc_s >> JM> etc,etc >> 90% of USE_GCC-ports don't use libgrotran & libquadmath. Many of them >> doesn;t use libstdc++. virtualbox-ose-additions DOESN'T USAE ANY OF THESE >> LIBRARIES! And I think, it is not unique in this regard! >>=20 >> And, of course, 99.9% of them doesn't use Java! JM> It doesn't matter, you get everything that is built by default. And you JM> need everything by default because sometimes gcc is needed for c++, JM> sometimes it's needed for fortran, sometimes it's needed for Ada JM> (gcc-aux), often the package has object files produced by different JM> languages but needs the same compiler to build them all. (sigh). I now how it is done now. Again, I try to say, that it should be changed. For example, gcc port could be split into gcc/g++/gfrotran/gcc-aux/gcj/runtime ports. 90% of software need gcc and/or g++. I never used gfortran or gnu ADA and I never-ever hear about projects, which need specifically gcj, especially when we have native OpenJDK7! Look at QT, for example. It is splitted to components. JM> So the only way to reduce unnecessary libraries is turn them off by JM> default, but that breaks lots of ports so you wouldn't do it. I speak about unnecessary binaries, headers and stuff like that here. Look, gcc-4.6.4 - 567.0MiB binutils-2.24 - 49.2MiB mpfr-3.1.2 - 1.6MiB mpc-1.2.0 - 0.4MiB gmp-5.1.3 - 2.3MiB (all data by "pkg info" output) At same time: libstdc++.so.6 - 5.5MiB libgcc_s.so - 0.4MiB libssp.so - 0.0MiB. I'm sure, that 90% of USE_GCC ports use only these three libraries. It is less than 1% of full toolchain size. You think it is Ok? Several ports could use libgfortran.so.3 (4.7MiB), libobjc.so.3 (0.5MiB) and libquadmath.so.0 (0.7MiB). I suspect, we don't have binary package, which needs libgcj.so libgcj-tools.so (179MiB combined!). JM> If you have the gcc dynamic libraries, you have the gcc that uses them. It is not obvious. Yes, now I have, but these libraries (10MiB) will work perfectly well without all other files (600MiB). JM> If you have the gcc that uses them, it has a runtime dependency on the JM> binutils that built it. All gcc built on FreeBSD have a dependency on JM> modern binutils (Not DragonFly though as they have binutils 2.22 and now JM> 2.24 in base). See above. virtualbox-ose-additions doesn't need assembler or linker or e= ven compiler (ANY compiler) to work. Or any library, for that matter. Many ports needs one or two libraries, but not all this madness. JM> Unless the packages are purely static the entire gcc setup gets pulled JM> in. It is how we do things now, but it is not only way to do it and not better way for sure. JM> Like I said above, if you don't fix *ALL* of them, there's no point to JM> working on any of them. Any port with USE_GCC=3Dyes will pull in JM> everything anyway, so you'd have to kill them all. It is perfectionism. May be, if we cover 50% of ports, but 50% which is used by 95% of non-developing users (and other 50% is rarely used) it is success. --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?686179459.20140208132425>