From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 8 08:21:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54891BB5; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [46.4.40.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C10115CC; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:cc06:8a07:85a3:8279]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A9D74AC1C; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:20:49 +0400 (MSK) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:20:42 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD Project X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1955647943.20140208122042@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: John Marino Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? In-Reply-To: <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ports@freebsd.org, marino@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:21:01 -0000 Hello, John. You wrote 8 =D1=84=D0=B5=D0=B2=D1=80=D0=B0=D0=BB=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 3:39:3= 7: >>>> And it seems, that most of USE_GCC-equipped ports pull all this develo= pment >>>> toolkit for nothing! >> DA> Well, some ports can be more or less difficult to get building with >> DA> clang. So depending on whether the maintainer(s) wish to choose the= way >> DA> of least resistance, they will sometimes decide to set USE_GCC. >> I'm not speaking about BUILD. I'm speaking about RUN. Why do I need co= mpiler, >> assembler, linker & Ko to run pre-build software? JM> dynamically linked libraries. JM> libcstd++ JM> libgfortran JM> libquadmath JM> libssp JM> libgcc_s JM> etc,etc 90% of USE_GCC-ports don't use libgrotran & libquadmath. Many of them doesn;t use libstdc++. virtualbox-ose-additions DOESN'T USAE ANY OF THESE LIBRARIES! And I think, it is not unique in this regard! And, of course, 99.9% of them doesn't use Java! JM> Ah, yes it is. See above. JM> GCC is built with GAS. It needs the GAS that it's configured with. But all these ports, which uses only libgcc_s and/or libstdc++ don't. You try to explain why it is as it is now, from purely formal, technical point of view. I know, thank you. What It try to say, that now, when we have binary packages (thank you, everybody, who make it possible!) and we don't have gcc in base on 10/CURRENT (and old gcc on older systems), we BADLY NEED way not to pull 0.5G of dependencies with any package, which was build with gcc! >> in case of USE_GCC, as libgcc.so + libstdc++.so is a tiiiiiiny fraction = of full >> binutils + gcc package, and on non-developers system there is no need to >> have 0.5G of toolchain only because some software were build by this >> tooclahin on our build cluster! >> And I have feeling, that right now many cases of USE_GCC=3Dany could be >> replaced with USE_GCC=3Dany:build and some "magic" to link with >> libgcc/libstdc++ statically. Without any modularization of packages and >> pkgng support. JM> My feeling is that this isn't correct. There are "-static-libgcc" and "-static-libstdc++" flags for gcc... What does they mean? I understand, that it is not for EACH port, but, maybe, for most of them they are Ok? --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov