From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 21 21:40:07 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C07F641;
 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:40:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0176B2718;
 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:40:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tuna.dhcp.nue.suse.com (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2])
 by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8FED3F469;
 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Any chances to reduce number of gcc ports/packages which are
 installed as BINARY PACKAGES dependencies?
In-Reply-To: <466003436.20140717005829@serebryakov.spb.ru>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1407212305390.6423@tuna.site>
References: <466003436.20140717005829@serebryakov.spb.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:40:07 -0000

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>  Maybe, we should encourage ports, which is needed gcc, to use only one
>  version? If many ports needs 4.8, maybe, we should bump "any" version to
>  4.8 for gcc-less systems? And move all other versions to 4.8?

I would love to do that, in fact, I hope that at one point we can
eventually get rid of USE_GCC=any.

What I can do for now, and have been planning to do for a few weeks,
is https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192025 aka
"Update default version of GCC (USE_GCC=yes, lang/gcc,...) to GCC 4.8".

>  Or build binary packages WITHOUT java by default!? Does anybody uses gcj
>  FOR REAL when we have native openjdk7 and openjdk8?!

There is good news, and there is bad news.  The bad news is that 
print/pdftk actually relies on the Java functionality in the GCC ports 
to build.  The good news is that it seems to be the only such port.

Mathieu, is there a way you can help?  I'd be happy to turn off Java
by default (but leave it in).

On top of these two, the really nice improvement is going to be when
we can support the creation of several packages out of one port -- at
that point we'd just break out a small gcc-runtime package.

Gerald