Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:25:25 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, John Marino <marino@freebsd.org> Cc: Andreas Tobler <andreast@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r416339 - head/lang/gcc5-aux/files Message-ID: <80c39aa6-eb10-ec52-d31c-38704e250346@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1606191356200.2645@anthias.pfeifer.com> References: <201606032131.u53LV4K3009774@repo.freebsd.org> <98f0eac7-3559-81fd-29cd-bd234cec6b6b@marino.st> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1606191356200.2645@anthias.pfeifer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/19/2016 2:06 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Hi John, > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016, John Marino wrote: >>> Author: andreast (src committer) >>> Date: Fri Jun 3 21:31:04 2016 >>> New Revision: 416339 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/416339 >>> >>> Log: >>> Skip armv6hf support and move it into armv6. >> These aren't going to work. >> I don't use regular patches, at all. They can interfere with the generated >> diff-* aggregate patches. Any new patch should be pulled into there. >> >> But what are these patches really for? Ada doesn't build on ARM due to the >> lack of a bootstrap compiler and interest. Should we just set ONLY_FOR_ARCH >> because without Ada, people should probably use the stock lang/gcc* ports. > > I believe what happened is that as Andreas and me discussed fixing > armv6hf / armv6 support and I approved changes to "my" lang/gcc* > ports, he (or some tab completion) unintentionally also hit this > lang/gcc5-aux ports. I assumed it was a en-masse change so I just took care of it. The commit message I replied to originally bounced on Andreas' email address though, so he may have never seen it. > > And, I agree, unless someone is looking for Ada, using the stock > lang/gcc* ports probably makes most sense. > > Gerald > > PS: By the way, how about using the standard FORTRAN instead of > FORT in your ports, per the patch below? I've no objection to this patch. Feel free to commit it if you think it's best for consistency. Regards, John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?80c39aa6-eb10-ec52-d31c-38704e250346>