Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 00:01:41 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Pete Carah <pete@altadena.net> Subject: Re: Ports broken by compiler upgrade Message-ID: <200408050001.41564.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <20040805061958.GA46953@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <20040805055630.GA45424@users.altadena.net> <20040805061958.GA46953@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 11:19 pm, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:56:30PM -0700, Pete Carah wrote: > > Many ports that compile in C++ are broken by the recent > > compiler upgrade; the packages distribution hasn't caught > > up *at all* either. I know part of the reason is that some > > of the affected ports don't compile at all with the new > > compiler (by trying). I presume that the converse probably > > holds too; once the ports are fixed then the resulting > > packages probably won't work on a current dated before > > last week. It might be a good idea to keep an older > > package directory around for a while for those not-quite- > > so-adventurous types... > > > > Two examples, artsd and aspell both abort instantly with > > undefined symbols; either the name-mangling has changed > > or one or another library has changed, or both. Aspell > > is needed for pan2 to work and artsd is obvious to those > > who like sound in kde. Neither compiles completely as-is > > (artsd itself actually does but several needed "extension" > > modules don't, leaving things less than useful). > > > > This may be old news but... It is not quite enough to > > make sure that the main tree compiles with a newly-committed > > compiler - some of the ports are so widely used (e.g. XFree86) > > that they could be considered to be fairly essential. > > GCC snapshots were available for ports people to test their ports > quite some time in advance. Expecting gcc maintainers to fix all > major ports to work with each new GCC version directy contradicts the > goal of having in-tree compiler updated more often than once every > 100 years. > > I would gladly respond to any bug report, indicating the trouble > with compiler itself, though. > I consider changing compilers like this to be the equivalent of the libintl.so.* changes. You have to think that the interfaces in the headers have changed and everything needs to be rebuilt using the new compiler. Since I updated XFree86 to xorg, I couldn't do a portupgrade -pufa easily. The upgrade had to be done more piece meal. What I have found, with one exception (libxine), is that a -Rf portupgrade did wonders on making individual ports compile again. FWIW, I am not having any problem building artsd or aspell. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408050001.41564.kstewart>