From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Sat Jul 6 03:38:06 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@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 08DA815DB418; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 03:38:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 979437020D; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 03:38:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 876561C381; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 03:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 03:38:05 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Mark Linimon , Piotr Kubaj , Cy Schubert , "Jason W. Bacon" , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USE_GCC=any -> USE_GCC=yes (was: svn commit: r504198 - head/Mk) Message-ID: <20190706033805.GA73838@FreeBSD.org> References: <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> <20190705161041.GA84307@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 979437020D X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.92 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.92)[-0.918,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 03:38:06 -0000 On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 09:18:57PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > I'd have to agree with Mark here: the literal reading of "any" means > > "it's OK to use base GCC" if it's available. While I understand that > > it's aged and on x86 it's the same as USE_GCC=yes, it's still a bad > > idea to change the meaning of words. > > That's not the proposal. The proposal is s/USE_GCC=any/USE_GCC=yes/. Ah, OK, sorry I've misunderstood. I think I see your point now. Since I like antique compilers, and since many software, when being properly written, can be built just fine with GCC 4.2, I won't be a huge supporter of this proposal, but OTOH this situation probably won't last long, so I won't profoundly object either. ./danfe