Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:06:05 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Antoine Brodin <antoine@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@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: <ca6d28298fae971cb19d524cc01a858c@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <533457BF.8010204@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> <8e44422e3b6932b6eaaa15d31737b342@shatow.net> <533457BF.8010204@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-03-27 11:54, John Marino wrote:
> On 3/27/2014 17:48, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, then you are being ingenuous. Three of those ports compile C,
> C++, Fortran and ObjC in addition to Ada. In many use cases, they are
> more powerful than the "main" compilers of the same version. They
> different count as a legitimate versions of gcc. The latter are cross
> compilers to android, so yes, non-ada users should be interested -- I
> would count them.
>
> John
You are not adding to this discussion. I take offense to you accusing me
of being disingenuous as well.
* dev-lang/gnat-gcc
Available versions:
(3.4) 3.4.6
(4.1) 4.1.2
(4.2) 4.2.3
(4.3) *4.3.2 ~*4.3.3 4.3.5 ~4.3.6
(4.4) ~4.4.3 ~4.4.5 ~4.4.7
(4.5) ~4.5.4
{nls}
Homepage: http://gcc.gnu.org/
Description: GNAT Ada Compiler - gcc version
[UD] sys-devel/gcc
Available versions:
(2.95) ~*2.95.3-r10!s
(3.1) *3.1.1-r2
(3.2) **3.2.2!s *3.2.3-r4
(3.3) (~)3.3.6-r1!s
(3.4) 3.4.6-r2!s
(4.0) ~*4.0.4!s
(4.1) 4.1.2!s
(4.2) (~)4.2.4-r1!s
(4.3) (~)4.3.3-r2!s 4.3.4!s (~)4.3.5!s 4.3.6-r1!s
(4.4) (~)4.4.2!s (~)4.4.3-r3!s 4.4.4-r2!s 4.4.5!s 4.4.6-r1!s
4.4.7!s
(4.5) (~)4.5.1-r1!s (~)4.5.2!s 4.5.3-r2!s 4.5.4!s
(4.6) (~)4.6.0!s (~)4.6.1-r1!s (~)4.6.2!s 4.6.3!s (~)4.6.4!s
(4.7) (~)4.7.0!s (~)4.7.1!s (~)4.7.2-r1!s (~)4.7.3!s
(4.8) **4.8.0!s **4.8.1!s
{altivec bootstrap boundschecking build cxx d doc fixed-point
fortran gcj go graphite gtk hardened ip28 ip32r10k java libssp lto
mudflap multilib multislot n32 n64 nls nopie nossp nptl objc objc++
objc-gc openmp regression-test static vanilla}
Installed versions: 4.5.3-r2(4.5)!s(05:37:02 PM 01/18/2012)(cxx
doc mudflap multilib nls nptl openmp -altivec -bootstrap -build
-fixed-point -fortran -gcj -graphite -gtk -hardened -libffi -libssp -lto
-multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla)
4.8.2(4.8)!s(04:43:17 PM 02/28/2014)(cxx doc multilib nls nptl openmp
-altivec -awt -fixed-point -fortran -gcj -go -graphite -hardened -libssp
-mudflap -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc
-regression-test -vanilla)
Homepage: http://gcc.gnu.org/
Description: The GNU Compiler Collection
*I am not counting gcc-aux as it is not comparable to the count from
portage main gcc*. I am only counting the main official gcc ports.
Note gcc gnat is also an entirely separate thing.
I don't know what GCC-AUX is and it's still not part of the 34* count
from portage there on gcc alone.
GCC-AUX: http://www.dragonlace.net/
That's not official GCC, it's a derivative. I commend and thank you for
your work, but it's not part of my point.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ca6d28298fae971cb19d524cc01a858c>