Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Mueller <mueller6727@bellsouth.net> To: Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, gerald@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lang/gcc46 Message-ID: <1323792345.81825.YahooMailClassic@web180207.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1s=mL0xkRJU3j9%2BmALFJBnvyAD6UF1R-k0j0mfRzZFU7w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Gerald, > > As a request once again similiar to one I have made in > the past... Would it be possible yet to slow down the update > process for the gcc46 port ? > > This is turning out to be quite the pain in the > U-Know-What with version flapping and rebuilding because a > port depends on it. If I am correct it is updated weekly. I > caught the tail end of the previous update and the day after > it was bumped to the next snapshot version & by the time > both of those were finished the port had once again been > bumped to _1. > > Is there anything that could be done to stabalize this > ... ? > > At this point I am left for the manual intervention of > using +IGNOREME files or excluding by whatever means > neccesary as weekly updates seem completely unneccesary now > that alot of ports are shifting to depend on gcc46. > > Can a gcc46-devel port be branched for those that > absolutely need the weekly updates ? > +1 > gcc46 is used by so many ports that I am continually > re-building it > and on slow machines, this takes a while. How about a > gcc46-devel port > that gets the regular updates and let gcc46 stay stable > when there are > not major fixes? > - > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com Now I see I accidentally sent my reply only to Kevin Oberman and not the list. Composing a message with vi editor is easier than webmail! I have to recompose this message since I failed to save. I wondered why the ports collection used development snapshots of gcc rather than stable releases. On my older computer, dating to 2001, with 256 MB RAM, building ports and portupgrades that depended on gcc-4.5.3 snapshot would bog down after about four hours due to exhausting virtual memory. It seems to make more sense to use stable gcc releases when needed as build dependencies, and keep the current weekly snapshots for testing and development purposes. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1323792345.81825.YahooMailClassic>