Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:00:30 +1100 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r375696 - head/multimedia/libx264 Message-ID: <549FE2CE.9050006@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1412281100080.3428@tuna.site> References: <201412280459.sBS4xbU9021196@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1412281100080.3428@tuna.site>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28/12/2014 9:01 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sunday 2014-12-28 04:59, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>> Log:
>> multimedia/libx264: Fix PGO/GCC options
>>
>> - Revert options helpers for PGO and GCC .. *shakes fist*. We end up
>> setting USE_GCC=yes yes otherwise, and that's not valid.
>> - libx264 and x264 share the same distfiles, use the same DIST_SUBDIR
>
>> +.if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MGCC}
>> +USE_GCC= yes
>> +.elif ${PORT_OPTIONS:MPGO}
>> +USE_GCC= any
>> +.endif
>
> Why not USE_GCC=yes in either case?
>
> Using anything like the old version of GCC in base (GCC 4.2) for
> anyone asking for PGO feels just, hmm, odd. Plus it complicates
> the testing matrix.
>
> Gerald
>
'any' wont clobber user values with the latest or default version as
detailed in Mk/bsd.gcc.mk, according to my reading and `make test-gcc`
for each of the permutations.
In this case I prefer to preserve user choice, and I can't guess what
and how users want to do with the software.
Speaking from personal experience, I would not want > 1 gcc versions
built and/or installed if I was forced for whatever reason to use it
(eg: PGO until libprofile_rt in Clang lands in FreeBSD), whether or not
4.2.1 provided statistically significant benefits over later versions.
tl;dr I'm thinking of the users. I hope that's good enough :)
Koobs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?549FE2CE.9050006>