From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Tue Dec 31 12:18:15 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35411D3774; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:18:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@toco-domains.de) Received: from toco-domains.de (mail.toco-domains.de [176.9.100.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47nCxd6hP8z4DMK; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:18:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@toco-domains.de) Received: by toco-domains.de (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A200B51260; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:18:11 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on toco-mail X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (x5d849e49.dyn.telefonica.de [93.132.158.73]) by toco-domains.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7432351240; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:18:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: svn commit: r521584 - head/Mk To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org References: <201912310306.xBV36oQM081788@repo.freebsd.org> <5eadceb4-790d-21c3-e5db-cd5a27d8e5f4@toco-domains.de> From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff Message-ID: <837eebf0-4d04-53cf-0fec-225b9dd5125c@toco-domains.de> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:17:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47nCxd6hP8z4DMK X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@toco-domains.de designates 176.9.100.27 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@toco-domains.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.40 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[toco-domains.de]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[27.100.9.176.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; IP_SCORE(-1.10)[ip: (-7.83), ipnet: 176.9.0.0/16(3.92), asn: 24940(-1.54), country: DE(-0.02)]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[73.158.132.93.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.10]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:176.9.0.0/16, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:18:16 -0000 On 31.12.19 09:58, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >>> -# USE_GCC= 7+ # port requires GCC 7 or later. >>> -# USE_GCC= 6 # port requires GCC 6. >> You remove the USE_GCC= 7+ comment here, while 7 is still used later. Is >> this intended? > > The idea was not to remove that example altogether, but update it > to use a newer version. > > A simplified version of the commit looks as follows: > > -# USE_GCC= 7+ # port requires GCC 7 or later. > +# USE_GCC= 9+ # port requires GCC 9 or later. > > The other example that referred to GCC 6 was mandatory to update since > USE_GCC=6 is not supported any more; version 7 I could have left in, but > figured pointing people to something newer would be better. > > In general the USE_GCC=X+ is mostly used for ports newer than the current > default. Just with GCC_DEFAULT at 9, which is the newest release available, > that was the highest choice available - until GCC 10 becomes available in > spring. ;-) > > Would you prefer different examples in Mk/bsd.gcc.mk? Thank you for your explanation Gerald. With this insight your diff looks fine and i do not think a different example is needed. :) Greetings, Torsten