From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Thu Jul 4 21:17:04 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF0015DE57D; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:17:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) (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 2312A724BB; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:17:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E6533DE6; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthias (unknown [46.57.85.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92FE433DE3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 23:16:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Mark Linimon cc: Piotr Kubaj , Alexey Dokuchaev , Cy Schubert , "Jason W. Bacon" , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: USE_GCC=any -> USE_GCC=yes (was: svn commit: r504198 - head/Mk) In-Reply-To: <20190704203112.GA6138@lonesome.com> Message-ID: References: <201906141610.x5EGAdnN049103@repo.freebsd.org> <20190614165425.GA42674@FreeBSD.org> <8BDC3B40-7FEA-46EA-AE7C-A3C266F6978F@cschubert.com> <20190614175822.GA3336@FreeBSD.org> <20190615061345.GA20346@lonesome.com> <20190615084354.GA33091@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> <20190704203112.GA6138@lonesome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2312A724BB X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.97 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.969,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 21:17:04 -0000 On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Mark Linimon wrote: > But ... what I understand is that "any" means "it's ok to use base > gcc". That was always the intended difference to "yes" which means > "you *must* use a recent gcc" [e.g. from ports]. > > I don't really see why we need to add the dependency on a newer gcc > if the version in base suffices. What am I missing here? I think we agree that nearly all FreeBSD users and developers are on amd64 (or i386) When a port maintainer or committer sets USE_GCC=any she and (nearly) everyone else therefore uses GCC 8 as of today. When that port is then built on powerpc64, USE_GCC=any implies the age old GCC 4.2 in base, and thus the build is attempted with a compiler very, very different from what the original maintainer/committer/testers and users had. > (Granted, this distinction becomes meaningless in FreeBSD e.g. 13 when > base gcc is deleted -- but we will still be supporting 11/12 for quite > some time to come.) And rejoicing there will be! :) >>> Most ports just need USES=compiler:*. >> Yes, and that's where we should take action as well. > And by default we have been doing that -- unless it is *known* that > the port simply won't build with clang and thus requires USE_GCC. > OTOH there has been recently pushback that "you could have done the > same thing more minimally by" (specifying c99, etc.) > > The problem is, we've tried to take the fastest route to getting as > large a set of packages built as possible. Thus: > > Mon Nov 19 13:48:26 UTC 2018 11304 > Sun Jun 16 06:10:04 UTC 2019 27953 > > but again, a) we're getting pushback; b) in any case, work has to be > done on ~120 ports to fix the "powerpc means gcc" assumption, which > will soon be smashed in -CURRENT (per above). > > (Frankly, except for the latter I would leave the whole issue alone. > Even if we spend ~1hr/port to prove that c99 is "more minimal", that's > still ~100 hours.) I'm not proposing to make things more complicated or increase effort. I'm proposing for USE_GCC=any to behave exactly the same on powerpc64 as it has been on amd64/i386 for years: Imply usage of a modern version of GCC coming from the ports tree. That is: let's align powerpc64 with amd64/i386 instead of being different. Makes sense? Gerald