From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 12 09:32:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89881106566B; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:32:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5AB14EC0B; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <505056C7.6010209@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:32:55 -1000 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <504ED1FC.3090608@FreeBSD.org> <20120911092750.GF20762@e-new.0x20.net> <20120912091520.GB22971@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20120912091520.GB22971@lonesome.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org, Brooks Davis , Lars Engels , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:32:56 -0000 On 09/11/2012 11:15 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > 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. Write the day on your calendars folks, I completely agree with what Mark said above. :) This is a big part of what I meant with some of my more colorful comments in my original post on this topic. Doug