Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:04:22 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Lorenzo Salvadore <phascolarctos@protonmail.ch> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default Message-ID: <CAN6yY1t%2B%2Bn8ygxqdNbG7Y_VmjxGF3tUz3Lt7JcMdt0qMRL=1Mw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <U1eVqpXHXpGapH5baLIsTCnovlRgl0ZYytv8DZMTdwO-8NlE361TIefC9XaIlnGFPTmKf8z3OEno1CL3Tx5EikA7EbwZ9u0SfjPAGeOPVFQ=@protonmail.ch> References: <CAN6yY1sT1-gt6qW=9mWBbN02Kbsu=N5=Mt7qVexJSDo1d3C4rA@mail.gmail.com> <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> <CAN6yY1sR=iynjqacu1ctAJ6Y64ZHnQKeO-GJ5BzcBCcicm6WSg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1907282034060.4100@anthias.pfeifer.com> <U1eVqpXHXpGapH5baLIsTCnovlRgl0ZYytv8DZMTdwO-8NlE361TIefC9XaIlnGFPTmKf8z3OEno1CL3Tx5EikA7EbwZ9u0SfjPAGeOPVFQ=@protonmail.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gerald,
Thanks for our excellent explanation. I must admit that I did not think
about various archs. So, now I understand why the PORTREVISION was bumped
and that I don't need to go back and build the ports that were rebuilt
prior to the gcc9-9.1 upgrade. I trust tat portmaster did hte right thing.
(Yes, I suppose that there is a slight risk, but I'll take it!)
Now, why the heck do rust and llvm both have packages that require samba47.
I don't see why they require samba at all, let alone a deprecated version
that will expire in about a week. Since I'm trying to upgrade a package for
amd64, I can't see archs being an issue, so I'm baffled. But that's a
different thread.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:12 PM Lorenzo Salvadore via freebsd-ports <
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
> On Sunday 28 July 2019 20:56, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> > > The description of the commit states:
> > > This includes ports
> > >
> > > - with USE_GCC=3Dyes or USE_GCC=3Dany,
> > > - with USES=3Dfortran,
> > > - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=3Dfortran, and
> > > - with USES=3Dcompiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c++0x,
> c++11-lang,
> > > c++11-lib, c++14-lang, c++17-lang, or gcc-c++11-lib
> > > plus, everything INDEX-11 shows with a dependency on lang/gcc9 no=
w.
> > >
> > >
> > > This would appear to me like it did catch a great many ports which ar=
e
> > > not build with or any anything to do will gcc, though I am not sure.
> >
> > These ports may not use GCC on your system, or even the majority of
> > systems, but there are systems and situations where they do, and bumpin=
g
> > PORTREVISION is a global binary decision for each port considered.
> >
> > > E.g. I thought that USES=3Dcompiler:c11 and similar were asking for
> > > c11 semantics from whatever compiler was used but
> >
> > Let's look at your example. ports/Mk/Uses/compiler.mk has the following
> > on USES=3Dcompiler:c11:
> >
> > .if ${_COMPILER_ARGS:Mc11}
> > .if !${COMPILER_FEATURES:Mc11}
> > .if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} =3D=3D gcc) ||
> > (${ARCH} !=3D amd64 && ${ARCH} !=3D i386) # clang not always supported =
on
> Tier-2
> > USE_GCC=3D yes
> > CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE=3D gcc
> > .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D gcc
> >
> > That is, if a user has set a preference for GCC or for non x86/x86-64
> > platforms, GCC is used.
> >
> > And if there is one legitimate configuration on the planet where a
> > PORTREVISION bump is required, we have to perform it in our repository.
> >
> > (This is not saying I may not have made a mistake somewhere, but in
> > general those bumps do appear necessary.)
> >
> > Gerald
>
> It might be useful to add a command to pkg that bumps PORTREVISION
> for installed packages without really building them again, for those case=
s
> when users know that they are not affected by the bump.
> I think at the moment this is possible only by manually modifying
> /var/db/pkg/local.sqlite (I never tried).
>
> Lorenzo Salvadore.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1t%2B%2Bn8ygxqdNbG7Y_VmjxGF3tUz3Lt7JcMdt0qMRL=1Mw>