Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:27:01 -0000 From: "Ganael LAPLANCHE" <martymac@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Ganael LAPLANCHE <martymac@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335728 - head/benchmarks/bonnie++ Message-ID: <20131206104108.M59808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20131206102210.GA78375@FreeBSD.org> References: <201312060950.rB69opsI095759@svn.freebsd.org> <20131206095801.GA72543@FreeBSD.org> <20131206095855.GB72543@FreeBSD.org> <20131206100547.M75091@FreeBSD.org> <20131206102210.GA78375@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:10 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote > Since these bit-stirring changes inside the binary are hardly > user-visible, yes, I think it was an overkill. But it does > not hurt, of course. I just do not like to rebuild things for > no real reason. I mean, if user is happy with installed > package (built with gcc46), why force him/her to rebuilt it > just for the sake of using different compiler? Of course I fully understand we want to avoid re-building software when it is not needed, but the fact that a same package version can embed different binaries bothers me, that's why I decided to bump the PORTREVISION. My original thought was more about being able to identify that this compiler has been used to produce that specific package version. But as any version of Gcc can be used in this case, this was probably meanless. Cheers, -- Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org FreeBSD: martymac <martymac@FreeBSD.org>, http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131206104108.M59808>