Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:40:36 -0700 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org Ports" <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFH] FreeBSD 10 and ports Message-ID: <27108BC8-1532-4173-B23A-052A34A5085B@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20130611192156.GU3047@kib.kiev.ua> References: <249D4A03-A62A-4033-9757-AF308D4422FF@FreeBSD.org> <20130611192156.GU3047@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi-- On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> = wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:50:03PM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote: >> As we all know FreeBSD 10 brings a new compiler along, and for that = we need to get ports on the right >> track. I have done several exp-runs on the current src and we still = have a lot of fallouts. We >> would like to ask you to have a look [1] at the failed ports and help = to fix them. We will start this week >> an i386 exp-run to see how the status is. >> [ ... ] >=20 > Didn't a sort of consensus when switching to clang for base was > discussed, was that ports would start use a port-provided version of = gcc > ? The adoption of the ports gcc was stalled due to the unability to = make > exp-runs, AFAIK. It sounds like you want the ports tree to come with USE_GCC set to = something (what?) by default. Well, that seems ... reasonable, certainly if it = proves difficult to identify which individual ports have GCC'isms. > What you are proposing is de-facto forking the whole open-source code > base. This cannot work, and in fact steals the FreeBSD resources for > something which has absolutely no relevance for FreeBSD project. I would agree that forking the whole open-source code base isn't a = relevant problem for FreeBSD project to solve. There are folks who find the exposure of clang to a widely used = collection of software such as the FreeBSD ports collection valuable, and are = motivated to fix any genuine issues found with Clang/LLVM. (At least once some of them recover from WWDC, anyway. :) > Ports should not be forced to use clang, either a ports gcc work > should be finished, or cc in HEAD switched back to gcc. This is > de-facto blocker for the 10.0. I don't understand why the base system compiler and the ports compiler would need to be linked. But I remember old SunOS 3 and 4 boxes which came with a kernel compiler and needed Sun's acc or a gcc = toolchain for almost everything else... Regards, --=20 -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27108BC8-1532-4173-B23A-052A34A5085B>