Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:57:43 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To:        Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Brendan Fabeny <bf1783@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: lang/gcc46
Message-ID:  <alpine.LNX.2.00.1207311746060.2533@gerinyyl.fvgr>
In-Reply-To: <5015D122.4040608@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <CAGFTUwNbj0mDrdu40dwkmECLhrc0Uwap=8UKi=tbBgRCTvZTMQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1207300152200.2533@gerinyyl.fvgr> <5015D122.4040608@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
>> lang/gcc and lang/gcc46 should be fully compatible, without rebuilds
>> necessary.  Only when lang/gcc is going to move to GCC 4.7 later this
>> year would I consider that.
> IMO this highlights the issue that unversioned instances of ports that
> really need versioning (like gcc) are a bad idea. It's much better for
> users to be able to tie their installations to a particular version, and
> then only update when they need to. The fact that someday in the future
> users who innocently upgrade lang/gcc will suddenly find that everything
> relying on libgcc at runtime is now broken pretty much speaks for itself.

The fact that I would consider that, was not supposed to imply
breakage. :-)  I was more thinking better optimization and other
benefits.

In my day job, we have been doing upgrades from GCC 4.x to GCC 4.x+y
run-times quite successfully and without any breakage more than once.
And we've got many, quite many, users.

In other words, if there is a challenge it's not GCC per se, more 
our packaging of it (and some work Bapt is doing on the packaging
infrastructure should help with that).

Gerald



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LNX.2.00.1207311746060.2533>