Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 01:26:52 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Clement Laforet <sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: [DRAFT] ports contributor's guide Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312050123220.2817-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <20031205072917.3c3573c8.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
One of the other ideas I have for this document is to emphasize that one of our most pressing needs right now is to get the ports tree in good shape on 5.x. Many of these problems are due to a few underlying changes in gcc, such as 'no more varargs.h, no more multiline constants unless you say that's really what you want, no more assuming "standard namespace" in c++ code', and so forth. The bento pages are are a really good way to see how common these kinds of bugs are. Really, by the time we branch a 5-STABLE, it would be very desireable to get 100 or 200 more ports either working with gcc3.3, or declared obsolete if they're abandonware. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0312050123220.2817-100000>