Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:48:07 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Antoine Brodin <antoine@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ... Message-ID: <8e44422e3b6932b6eaaa15d31737b342@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <5334555F.70806@marino.st> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <CAALwa8kUkOWQ9fW2VpxsqA97B3antHGob=Hn35H%2BS93Kc1%2Bfdw@mail.gmail.com> <20140327130726.GD93483@FreeBSD.org> <8db20343037cfedce85801350a12fe4d@shatow.net> <5334555F.70806@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-03-27 11:44, John Marino wrote: > On 3/27/2014 17:39, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> >> I agree completely with you. I don't understand why we remove ports >> that >> are working perfectly fine, except where broken or no upstream and >> there >> are security concerns. As a user I hate this. I still want older gcc >> and >> tcl. Portage has *32* versions of GCC while we have 4. For me, picking >> a >> development platform is all about which packages are available to test >> the portability of my code. > > To be pedantic, you are neglecting my work: > lang/gnat-aux (expiring) > lang/gcc47-aux > lang/gcc49-aux > lang/gnatdroid-armv5 > lang/gnatdroid-armv7 > > so that's 5 more right off the bat. And they differ from the vanilla > lang/gccXX, otherwise they could be combined. > I don't care or know what those are. I only care about the main GCC ports in my count. I also did not include the ADA gcc compiler in my portage count. > And as somebody who can speak to it, maintaining GCC ports is quite > demanding. they are not easy. There's a pragmatic argument to be made > here. Also older gccs are hard to keep running (see 2.95, 3.4, etc) > Sure, maybe. As I said, *not broken ports*. There is NO demand to maintain something if it just works. If it breaks, deprecate it, and then remove it if no one steps up. Perfectly fine. > John -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8e44422e3b6932b6eaaa15d31737b342>