Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:24:44 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To:        Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r351936 - in head: . Mk Mk/Uses archivers/libcomprex archivers/libdynamite archivers/liborange archivers/librtfcomp archivers/lzo2 archivers/ucl archivers/unshield audio/gstreamer1-plug...
Message-ID:  <alpine.LSU.2.11.1409121421070.2669@tuna.site>
In-Reply-To: <20140709161049.600ed308@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
References:  <201404231325.s3NDPHrv045503@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1406301209040.30120@tuna.site> <20140702164609.000d0561@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1407090149080.6008@tuna.site> <20140709161049.600ed308@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> The primary difference I can see if I add USES=libtool on top is that
>> I get a couple of libraries like the following ones:
>> 
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libstdc++.so.6.0.21
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libstdc++.so.6.0.21-gdb.py
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libcilkrts.so.5.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libssp.so.0.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libquadmath.so.0.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libgfortran.so.3.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libobjc.so.4.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libgcj.so.15.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libgij.so.15.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libgcj-tools.so.15.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libgomp.so.1.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libitm.so.1.0.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/lib/gcc410/libatomic.so.1.1.0
>>   prefix/gcc410/libexec/gcc410/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd10.0/4.10.0/liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0
>> 
>> So, should I still add USES=libtool to these ports?
> Yes.  This new version scheme reduces future library version bumps.

I think I get that in general, but how so in case of the lang/gcc* ports?

Due to libgcc_s.so, among others, I do not see how PORTREVISION bumps
are reduced when upgrading lang/gcc (which is the only case where we
have had to do this).

(This is why I had not gone ahead making this change, but see that you
know committed this yesterday.)

Gerald



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.2.11.1409121421070.2669>