From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Nov 28 18:35:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from pluto.psn.net (pluto.psn.net [207.211.58.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5D615020; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:35:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from will@shadow.blackdawn.com) Received: from 5042-243.008.popsite.net ([209.224.140.243] helo=shadow.blackdawn.com) by pluto.psn.net with esmtp (PSN Internet Service 3.03 #1) id 11sGeu-0004hz-00; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:35:21 -0700 Received: (from will@localhost) by shadow.blackdawn.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA31679; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:35:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from will) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3.1 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <19991128201850.A61560@lovett.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:35:16 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: Will Andrews From: Will Andrews To: Ade Lovett Subject: Re: ports/15135: new port: devel/cervisia Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Bill Fumerola , "Chris D. Faulhaber" , "David E. O'Brien" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 29-Nov-99 Ade Lovett wrote: > But the compiler gap between -STABLE and -CURRENT is now so wide that > such measures do probably need to be taken. I agree with this particular statement.. frankly, I've wondered why gcc 2.91.66 wasn't MFC'd to 3.x long ago (David?). After all, it's been in -CURRENT for several months (at the very least). And all we need is 2.91.66, since that is the earliest version (that I know of) which supports the newer ANSI ISO C++ standards. That is, the new standard apparently not supported by the older gcc. Can we not MFC gcc 2.91.66 to RELENG_3 for a future version of 3.x? I am sure this can be done, although I can also hear some people wondering whether this is common sense, since some people may not need the support boasted by the new gcc. > If such a change does happen, it may also be worth considering synchronising > it with a move to USE_NEWGCC for the GNOME metaport, since there seems to > be increasing amount of third-party code that can take advantage of both > environments. I also agree here.. although I can't think of any ports offhand that require newgcc and gnome (and/or kde). Bottom line - I don't think it will be long before newgcc will be required all over the KDE & GNOME plates. The sooner it's implemented, the better. Thus, in the next updates for KDE and GNOME ports, we really should do a version bump (i.e., libkdeui.so.2 -> libkdeui.so.6 or similar) in order to force people to use newgcc in order to get the newer apps compiled properly. Of course, that means we'd have to sync all the KDE and GNOME-based apps depending on newgcc'd libraries. It's just another hurdle. Similar to marcel's fame. -- Will Andrews GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message