From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 6 08:11:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9DF106566B; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:11:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4478FC18; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vcbgb22 with SMTP id gb22so2956763vcb.13 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:11:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oSAvSpxOkMMHDhXHmt8UKlRX3iTByl2bmQxOesKOHxU=; b=S6TcMyKUBGyY+tlWNEgA4lHv9oyFAb89ChENemppSJSOMJL5AOZwhshkNYLCAy3dJs kI3ICE6bEIV/uOWrhWacR+bY8NC9036wnjSTGA4KBXAF2R7Cm27dBKik3UzBFCQDM8+4 319S71AenXK1hdrhP6aSDmB1zYwkovngI4qNCnrfB5tlvp6H2CiiHmUfjzfhv/i6yVAI G61CSQyn/JmpHLJserppiYCoDo/WlPkanXHECOhVmYGA5hg6SIF8h/wB9/wWirUJOwpd UbwLgNrn1zc45GTSKjFgSr5bl2Acj2kwUpWuzXJnl3LzR/SZx7t4qSu7SveqZFHxMwUW A5Wg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.208.203 with SMTP id gd11mr7374327vcb.26.1344240663000; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.238.9 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 01:11:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <501F778C.5040203@FreeBSD.org> References: <5015D122.4040608@FreeBSD.org> <501F40DB.900@FreeBSD.org> <501F778C.5040203@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:11:02 +0000 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kevin Oberman Subject: Re: lang/gcc46 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:11:04 -0000 On 8/6/12, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/06/2012 00:30, b. f. wrote: >> On 8/6/12, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 07/31/2012 08:57, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote: >>> Just to be clear, you compile stuff with gcc 4.6, that is linked against >>> libgcc, and then you update to 4.7, with a new libgcc, and everything >>> still works? If so, that's great, I'm glad to hear that it's not a >>> problem. >> >> For the most part, yes. > > In my mind, this isn't good enough. But I'm not in charge of anything. :) Oops: I forgot though, that partly due to this policy of not bumping gcc shared library versions, we have some shared libraries in the base system that conflict with the shared libraries of the various gcc ports, and we have been enforcing the right links by inscribing hints in the binaries to look first in the right gcc port directories. But if we update lang/gcc from 4.6.x to another major version (e.g. 4.7.x), the directory changes, and linking for the old binaries will fail. So let me qualify my earlier answer: you can keep the old software working with minimal intervention, for example, by adding a symlink from the old directory to the new one. > >> I think Gerald was referring to Bapt's plan to make it easier to make >> multiple packages from a single port, so that those who used packages >> exclusively could install a package consisting of only the runtime >> support libraries, rather than the whole compiler suite. > > Universal support for that is years away, minimum. > >> I had >> patches to do this even without pkgng, but it made things a little >> more complicated, and didn't seem to be a high priority, so I didn't >> pursue it. If people feel that it is important, I could work with >> Gerald to revive that, or use a knob like that of ports/155408 with >> static linking to allow users to remove the runtime dependency for a >> lot of software, at the cost of some added overhead from redundancies. > > Making this change now would benefit a lot of people, now. Okay, but since I'm not in charge either, it will require (at least) Gerald's consent. And if you adopt the latter approach, it won't be one size fits all: it may make sense to use static linking to the support libraries for default packages, of which a comparatively few are built with lang/gcc4*, but it will be less suitable for those who routinely use lang/gcc4* for most if not all of their packages. b.