Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:47:47 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? Message-ID: <52F60B53.9050906@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <52F60784.7020706@marino.st> References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org> <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> <1955647943.20140208122042@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F5EB97.5040603@marino.st> <686179459.20140208132425@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F60649.4010006@gmx.de> <52F60784.7020706@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 08.02.2014 11:31, schrieb John Marino: > On 2/8/2014 11:26, Matthias Andree wrote: >> Individual examples aside, I recollect that one of the selling points >> for STAGING, together with pkgNG, was that we would later have the >> chance to split up one build into multiple binary packages. >> >> Not sure what other changes to the infrastructure are required >> (Mk/bsd.port.mk needs to be taught to build more than one package from >> the STAGEDIR), but it's not impossible that we'll see features as Lev >> desires, later, as "perhaps in 2015". >> >> And libgcc_s is a dependency you get on practically every port that is >> compiled with a newer GCC. > > Are you sure this is still true? Now that FreeBSD supports > dl_iterate_phdr (and has for a few years now), gcc exceptions are > handled through rtld, not libgcc_s. I suspect that newer FreeBSD > releases have packages without this linked library. Is there another > reason to see libgcc_s used these days? Never bothered to check.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F60B53.9050906>