From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 28 09:14:34 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53710A6B93 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:14:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BAD68CEB4 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA2A33F27; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthias (unknown [178.114.243.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E6A833F26; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 11:14:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Kevin Oberman cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5BAD68CEB4 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of gerald@pfeifer.com designates 209.68.5.143 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gerald@pfeifer.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.31 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:hamza.pair.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[pfeifer.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mailwash29.pair.com]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[143.5.68.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.87)[-0.869,0]; IP_SCORE(-2.14)[ip: (-7.85), ipnet: 209.68.0.0/18(-1.68), asn: 7859(-1.11), country: US(-0.05)]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7859, ipnet:209.68.0.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:14:34 -0000 On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all > were the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The > problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports > were rebuilt with the exact same compiler it was built with before the > rebuild This feels a bit like a deja vu? Wasn't there a similar issue last year, with the update from GCC 7 to GCC 8 (or an earlier one)? And wasn't one finding back then that there was a bug in the tool you used to update/build your ports tree? I just double checked, and r507371 | gerald | 2019-07-26 20:35:21 +0000 (Fr., 26 Juli 2019) | 7 lines Update the default version of GCC as pulled in via USE_GCC=yes and a myriad of other ways from GCC 8 (8.3 right now) to GCC 9 (9.1 right now). landed in the tree directly before the PORT_REVISION bump you are referring to, so lang/gcc9 *should* have been installed first and then used to rebuild all those bumped ports. > Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates? Yes. > Perhaps a note in UPDATING? I certainly looked there before I started > when I saw 226 ports in the list. UPDATING is described as This file documents some of the problems you may encounter when upgrading your ports. We try our best to minimize these disruptions, but sometimes they are unavoidable. and the update of the default version of GCC in the ports tree should not be, nor cause, problems worth documenting there. For example, most of the updates to Firefox are not mentioned there, either. > Should I rebuild the ports that were rebuilt prior to the installation > of gcc-9.1? If you want to have a consistent system, and be in line with what the majority of users will have, then yes, I'd recommend that. Gerald