Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:06:09 +0200
From:      John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
To:        Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org,  svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r384521 - head/Mk
Message-ID:  <5538D221.2090804@marino.st>
In-Reply-To: <201504222129.t3MLTLut046445@svn.freebsd.org>
References:  <201504222129.t3MLTLut046445@svn.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/22/2015 23:29, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Author: gerald
> Date: Wed Apr 22 21:29:21 2015
> New Revision: 384521
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/384521
> 
> Log:
>   Since there is not going to be any new version of GCC in the FreeBSD
>   base system ever again, simplify the GCCVERSION table and logic to not
>   worry about minimum system versions carrying a certain version of GCC.
>   
>   This also removes the _GCCVERSION_${v}_R variables and simplifies some
>   logic and debug output.
> 
> Modified:
>   head/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk
> 

This look like "for fun" change, like several before it on bsd.gcc.mk.
This is the most heavily patched Mk file for dports and most changes to
it break dports.  DragonFly does indeed have GCC in base (two of them
actually) and probably will for a long time to come.

I have not access the impacts yet, but this might be a sledgehammer to
recover from.   In the future, could you at least give me a heads up and
ideally put me on a phabric review for changes to anything compiler
related?  In general, shouldn't bsd.gcc.mk go through a phabric review
anyway?

Thanks.  I've been silently adjusting and not all the changes actually
did anything except "simplify".

John



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5538D221.2090804>