From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 31 15:57:47 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB35106564A;
	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com)
Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160B48FC0C;
	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from k53.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2])
	by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BEC53F40F;
	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:57:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:57:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <5015D122.4040608@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1207311746060.2533@gerinyyl.fvgr>
References: <CAGFTUwNbj0mDrdu40dwkmECLhrc0Uwap=8UKi=tbBgRCTvZTMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1207300152200.2533@gerinyyl.fvgr>
	<5015D122.4040608@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Brendan Fabeny <bf1783@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org,
	Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: lang/gcc46
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:57:47 -0000

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
>> lang/gcc and lang/gcc46 should be fully compatible, without rebuilds
>> necessary.  Only when lang/gcc is going to move to GCC 4.7 later this
>> year would I consider that.
> IMO this highlights the issue that unversioned instances of ports that
> really need versioning (like gcc) are a bad idea. It's much better for
> users to be able to tie their installations to a particular version, and
> then only update when they need to. The fact that someday in the future
> users who innocently upgrade lang/gcc will suddenly find that everything
> relying on libgcc at runtime is now broken pretty much speaks for itself.

The fact that I would consider that, was not supposed to imply
breakage. :-)  I was more thinking better optimization and other
benefits.

In my day job, we have been doing upgrades from GCC 4.x to GCC 4.x+y
run-times quite successfully and without any breakage more than once.
And we've got many, quite many, users.

In other words, if there is a challenge it's not GCC per se, more 
our packaging of it (and some work Bapt is doing on the packaging
infrastructure should help with that).

Gerald