Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:15:20 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <20120912091520.GB22971@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20120911092750.GF20762@e-new.0x20.net> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <504ED1FC.3090608@FreeBSD.org> <20120911092750.GF20762@e-new.0x20.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports > build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. I think this is a mis-representation. Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding an ex-post-facto requirement. This creates the following matrix of what we are implicitly asking maintainers to do: (FreeBSD 7|8|9|10) * (amd64|arm|i386|powerpc|sparc64) * (base gcc|base clang) It is completely insane to expect anyone to be able to test in all of those environments, or even a tiny subset of them. This isn't what most people sign up for when they sign up to maintain ports. > Those who don't run CURRENT won't notice, but those who do will have to > get their butts up and fix the ports I think it's foolish to assume that maintainres don't have their butts in gear as it is. Please note, we have nearly 1300 PRs, hundreds of ports with build errors and/or PRs, and hundreds that fail on -current only. I try to advertise all these things the best I know how. Adding the hundreds that fail on -clang only and then blaming the maintainers is simply going to be counter-productive. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120912091520.GB22971>