Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:22:26 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> To: undisclosed-recipients:; Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Message-ID: <521745F2.8050607@passap.ru> In-Reply-To: <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5217413A.9080105@passap.ru> <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
23.08.2013 15:16, Kurt Jaeger пишет: > Hi! > >>> I have a patch that I intend to commit before the 10.0 code >>> slush that removes GCC and libstdc++ from the default build on >>> platforms where clang is the system compiler. We definitely don't >>> want to be supporting our 6-year-old versions of these for the >>> lifetime of the 10.x branch. >> >> Isn't it a POLA violation? >> >> As for me I expect something like this: >> . 9.x gcc default and clang in base; >> . 10.x clang default and gcc in base; >> . 11.x gcc withdraw. > > If the 150 ports that only work with gcc, all work with a ports > gcc and do not need the gcc from base, would the following be OK ? > > - 9.x gcc default and clang in base; > - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports; Well, we write rules and we brake them. ;-) Just say that we know we brake them but it's inevitable because... And go futher. -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?521745F2.8050607>