From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Mon Nov 9 15:46:04 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D2DA29344; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:46:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 080191BAC; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:46:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (210.Red-81-38-187.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [81.38.187.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D7643BA8; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:46:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r388648 - in head/net: asterisk11 asterisk13 To: Adam Weinberger , Alexey Dokuchaev References: <201506052330.t55NUBZL020965@svn.freebsd.org> <564044BC.5050203@FreeBSD.org> <077EDBDC-8EF1-44FA-9D17-90345C2956F5@adamw.org> <20151109153801.GA60954@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , Guido Falsi , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org From: John Marino Message-ID: <5640BFB5.6010107@marino.st> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:45:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:46:04 -0000 On 11/9/2015 4:41 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > I think the difference there is pedantic, and possibly more confusing. While > it is true that "build with" may not always be accurate, "use" is so generic > as to convey practically nothing. > > My vote is for "Build with modern GCC (from ports)" Except there's no building if GCC is already in place. The real impact is GCC libraries, which makes the *entire* GCC a run-time dependency. That's the kicker, not the building. Is subpackages here yet? John