From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 1 19:28:41 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C9316A41F; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:28:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBD343D46; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:28:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from [128.131.111.48] (pulcherrima [128.131.111.48]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8671B137D4; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:28:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:28:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Alexey Dokuchaev In-Reply-To: <20050801171425.GB1348@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <200507311334.j6VDYZcb071651@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050801084048.GA41179@FreeBSD.org> <20050801171425.GB1348@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ports MOVED ports/lang Makefile ports/lang/gcc31 Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist ports/lang/gcc31/files patch-ad patch-af patch-ai patch-ar patch-fa patch-fb patch-fc patch-va X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:28:41 -0000 On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> I think gcc33 will be there for quite some time, but please note that >> the gcc33 port fails to work on amd64 and FreeBSD 7. > I've aware of that. I still hope, however, that this woudl get fixed in > some time. How hard is the problem, BTW? FreeBSD 7 probably won't be too hard, amd64 is unlikely. >> Personally, I'd be very hesitant to accept any new port which fails to >> work with GCC 3.4 or later. That's a maintenance nightmare in the making. > This would of course be highly desirable, but the reality is lots of > software are nto supported by 3.4. I tend to blame popular Linnex distros > that still carry 3.2 and 3.3 versions these days, given that vast > majority of developers use those as their primary build platforms. :-( SUSE builds all of their packages with GCC 4.0 these days, and I've been told that Red Hat does the same with Fedora. Gerald