Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:06:00 +0200
From:      Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>
To:        Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, gerald@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default
Message-ID:  <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1sT1-gt6qW=9mWBbN02Kbsu=N5=Mt7qVexJSDo1d3C4rA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAN6yY1sT1-gt6qW=9mWBbN02Kbsu=N5=Mt7qVexJSDo1d3C4rA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all were
> the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The problem is
> that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports were rebuilt
> with the exact same compiler it was built with before the rebuild, eating
> up 2:45 of time on my build system. I'm sure if was less for many as my
> build system is over 8 years old. It was non-trivial in any case.

Which port management tool did you use to rebuild the updated ports?

I just checked what portmaster does, and it appears to build gcc-9.1
before starting to update ports that depend on it.

It was the 78th port out of 653 out-dated ports (most of them due to
a bumped port revision because of the gcc update), and I checked with
"make all-depends-list" that none of the first 77 ports depended on
gcc ...

> Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates? Perhaps a note in UPDATING?
> I certainly looked there before I started when I saw 226 ports in the list.

Updating required build tools before ports that require them should
be automatic, if a tool like portmaster, portupgrade or poudriere is
used.

Regards, STefan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a>