From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 22 17:27:00 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAB63B5; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A615AA4A; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.133] (vie-188-118-248-211.dsl.sil.at [188.118.248.211]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 856893F45D; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:26:56 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: John Marino Subject: Re: svn commit: r381535 - head/lang/gcc5 In-Reply-To: <5509F5BD.3080004@marino.st> Message-ID: References: <201503181039.t2IAd5Bk091541@svn.freebsd.org> <5509F5BD.3080004@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:27:00 -0000 On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, John Marino wrote: >> Are these ports really called gcc50 and gcc47 in Dragon-land? > They aren't ports, they are the values of the CCVER environment > variable that seamlessly switches between the base compilers. Ah, I see! > The gcc version scheme change was pretty pointless (it could have > easily been 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 6.0.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.2) but that's a > different discussion. Isn't it essentially what FreeBSD has done a bit ago? I do understand the consequences you are facing, not that one alternative would have been GCC 4.10 hence gcc410 and all sorts of problems with GCC 5.0 at a later point in time (even keeping the versioning scheme). Rock and a hard place, I guess. Gerald