Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 23:16:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@anongoth.pl>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, "Jason W. Bacon" <jwb@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: USE_GCC=any -> USE_GCC=yes (was: svn commit: r504198 - head/Mk) Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1907042302300.4639@anthias.pfeifer.com> In-Reply-To: <20190704203112.GA6138@lonesome.com> References: <201906141610.x5EGAdnN049103@repo.freebsd.org> <F69E23F2-E526-4B3F-95EB-1786222C2D61@cschubert.com> <20190614165425.GA42674@FreeBSD.org> <8BDC3B40-7FEA-46EA-AE7C-A3C266F6978F@cschubert.com> <20190614175822.GA3336@FreeBSD.org> <20190615061345.GA20346@lonesome.com> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1906151028570.3441@anthias.pfeifer.com> <20190615084354.GA33091@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1906151058350.3441@anthias.pfeifer.com> <20190704203112.GA6138@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mark Linimon wrote: > But ... what I understand is that "any" means "it's ok to use base > gcc". That was always the intended difference to "yes" which means > "you *must* use a recent gcc" [e.g. from ports]. > > I don't really see why we need to add the dependency on a newer gcc > if the version in base suffices. What am I missing here? I think we agree that nearly all FreeBSD users and developers are on amd64 (or i386) When a port maintainer or committer sets USE_GCC=any she and (nearly) everyone else therefore uses GCC 8 as of today. When that port is then built on powerpc64, USE_GCC=any implies the age old GCC 4.2 in base, and thus the build is attempted with a compiler very, very different from what the original maintainer/committer/testers and users had. > (Granted, this distinction becomes meaningless in FreeBSD e.g. 13 when > base gcc is deleted -- but we will still be supporting 11/12 for quite > some time to come.) And rejoicing there will be! :) >>> Most ports just need USES=compiler:*. >> Yes, and that's where we should take action as well. > And by default we have been doing that -- unless it is *known* that > the port simply won't build with clang and thus requires USE_GCC. > OTOH there has been recently pushback that "you could have done the > same thing more minimally by" (specifying c99, etc.) > > The problem is, we've tried to take the fastest route to getting as > large a set of packages built as possible. Thus: > > Mon Nov 19 13:48:26 UTC 2018 11304 > Sun Jun 16 06:10:04 UTC 2019 27953 > > but again, a) we're getting pushback; b) in any case, work has to be > done on ~120 ports to fix the "powerpc means gcc" assumption, which > will soon be smashed in -CURRENT (per above). > > (Frankly, except for the latter I would leave the whole issue alone. > Even if we spend ~1hr/port to prove that c99 is "more minimal", that's > still ~100 hours.) I'm not proposing to make things more complicated or increase effort. I'm proposing for USE_GCC=any to behave exactly the same on powerpc64 as it has been on amd64/i386 for years: Imply usage of a modern version of GCC coming from the ports tree. That is: let's align powerpc64 with amd64/i386 instead of being different. Makes sense? Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.2.21.1907042302300.4639>