Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:35:43 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org Ports" <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFH] FreeBSD 10 and ports Message-ID: <20130612043543.GA2081@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130611192156.GU3047@kib.kiev.ua> References: <249D4A03-A62A-4033-9757-AF308D4422FF@FreeBSD.org> <20130611192156.GU3047@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:21:56PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > What you are proposing is de-facto forking the whole open-source code > base. This cannot work, and in fact steals the FreeBSD resources for > something which has absolutely no relevance for FreeBSD project. >From what I see there is currently just over 1K ports failing, and not all off them are due to Clang. This number is perfectly manageable to solve within several months timeframe. Quite a fraction of those Clang-failing ports (judging from the commit logs) are solvable by passing -Wno-foobar to CFLAGS. So I think a real fix is needed for a few hundreds of ports. > Ports should not be forced to use clang, either a ports gcc work > should be finished, or cc in HEAD switched back to gcc. This is > de-facto blocker for the 10.0. Ports should build with any compiler, ideally. Those ports who fail should be fixed, or marked as GCC-only as a last resort. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130612043543.GA2081>