From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 14 14:51:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D887D1065670 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:51:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620408FC08 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:51:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1LN75k-0008LX-AC>; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:51:36 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1LN75k-0005ur-8w>; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:51:36 +0100 Message-ID: <496DFB74.5010808@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:49:24 +0000 From: "O. Hartmann" Organization: Freie =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Universit=E4t_Berlin?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090112) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pegasus Mc Cleaft References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <496D1ED6.4090202@FreeBSD.org> <200901132356.40820.ken@mthelicon.com><496DCC38.4010809@FreeBSD.org> <496DD37E.5010900@gmx.de> <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII> In-Reply-To: <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: Christoph Mallon , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Doug Barton Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:51:38 -0000 Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: >> Doug Barton schrieb: >>> Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: >>>> At the moment you can already compile gcc 4.3 from the ports tree, >>>> however things like binutils only seems to exist in the ports as a >>>> cross compiling tool. How hard would it be to add binutils as a port >>>> and make the gcc 4.x ports dependent on it? This way you can install >>>> gcc 4.3 with the assembler and linker that play nice together during >>>> the build? At the moment, I have had to make binutils from a gnu >>>> downloaded source and then make gcc 4.3 with a silly make, IE: make >>>> AS=/usr/local/bin/as .......... >>> >>> I think this would be an excellent approach. I am not sure I agree >>> with the idea that we _must_ have a compiler toolchain in the base but >>> it should definitely be possible to "replace" the toolchain in the >>> base with one from ports with a minimum of hassle. > > I'm not sure I like the idea of not having _a_ compiler in the base. > I'm not really sure how that would work when you wanted to update and > build the sources. I suppose you would need to install a binary port of > the compiler (et. all) before you could build a more recent tool-chain. > > Perhapse another option.... > > If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what BSD is > able to include under GPL V2. Can we draw a line under it and continue > to include it as buildable with the world if a configure option like > "option BUILDGCC42" is in the kernel config file? This way an admin who > wanted to build it and use it as a primer could, before downloading the > port and building the later versions (if he wanted to, or there > organization allowed him to). Some of the older *nix's I have worked on > (OSF/1, HPUX, SCO, etc) have a very basic (but normally optimized > compiler) for that platform that is enough to compile a version of gcc > that will be used to compile other tools and services. > > >>> On the one hand I like the "BSD approach" of sticking with tools that >>> work rather than constantly chasing the latest and greatest. However I >>> think we can run the risk of becoming mired in our own success, and >>> losing the agility that we'll need to keep things moving forward in >>> what will only become a more dynamic environment. > > I have always loved the way that BSD (and most *nix's) have most of the > tools I need out of the box to get a system running (or running again if > it gets completely borked) > > ~Peg Well, not having a compiler in the base system can be frustrating, even if you're used to be free and independent. SUN extracted by the end of the 90s the C compiler from their operating system and that was for some of my colleagues a very frustrating experience. Yes, you can install a 'package', but ...