Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:44:03 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> Cc: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, gerald@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default Message-ID: <23869.57059.335146.210076@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org> References: <CAN6yY1sT1-gt6qW=9mWBbN02Kbsu=N5=Mt7qVexJSDo1d3C4rA@mail.gmail.com> <8cf76d79-3a08-7703-d2a8-f6605438dd8a@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stefan Esser writes: > Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one > > exception, all were the result of the bump or the default gcc > > version to 9.1. The problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, > > so over 43 of these ports were rebuilt with the exact same > > compiler it was built with before the rebuild, eating up 2:45 of > > time on my build system. I'm sure if was less for many as my > > build system is over 8 years old. It was non-trivial in any case. > > Which port management tool did you use to rebuild the updated ports? > > I just checked what portmaster does, and it appears to build gcc-9.1 > before starting to update ports that depend on it. This matches my experience - ports tree updated starting 00:00:01 Saturday, build started eight hours later. Respectfully, Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23869.57059.335146.210076>