From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 23 23:01:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928FF16A41F; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gerald@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B62943D6D; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gerald@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gerald@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jANN1j26025332; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:45 GMT (envelope-from gerald@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gerald@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id jANN1iUC025328; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:44 GMT (envelope-from gerald) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:44 GMT From: Gerald Pfeifer Message-Id: <200511232301.jANN1iUC025328@freefall.freebsd.org> To: gerald@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/86512: [new port] lang/gcc401 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, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:48 -0000 Synopsis: [new port] lang/gcc401 Responsible-Changed-From-To: gerald->ports Responsible-Changed-By: gerald Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Nov 23 22:27:11 GMT 2005 Responsible-Changed-Why: Sorry for the delay, had been gone for some time. I don't want to veto/reject this, but I won't be the one to maintain such ports, so I'm returning this to ports@. My personal opinion is that this is not worthwhile, because release branches are supposed to be stable, and generally are. If there was any perceived unstability earlier this year, that was due to me cleaning up the ports, and due to problems with Java support. In fact, one can consider it harmfull to some extent, since by tracking a release branch, in the rare case there is a problem, we can have it fixes rather sooner than latter, before the next release. Also, GCC x.y.z is not necessarily strictly better than GCC x.y.z+1 in all regards, even though that's the goal, so by that reasoning we'd have to have a gcc401, a gcc402, a gcc403 and so forth port. (If there were problems with 4.0, keep in mind that this was rather large a version jump. Nobody usually would use 4.0.0 for production, would he?) http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=86512