Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:56:29 +0200 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgUMOpcmV6?= <fbl@aoek.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Uses/compiler.mk does not trigger under RBPi Message-ID: <561105DD.1030903@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <560FAAA4.6080800@sorbs.net> References: <bfe1c24f878ca90245680b2cfae1f6d2@mail.yourbox.net> <560DCFD7.30509@sorbs.net> <c5f4ab0adc751410b8205e6f3aedda57@mail.yourbox.net> <560FAAA4.6080800@sorbs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michelle Sullivan wrote: > José Pérez wrote: > >> Hi Michelle, >> thank you for your suggestion. Is this another workaround? >> > > As far as I was aware if you need Uses/compiler.mk it should be > specified (there are params if a particular compiler/feature set is > required) with USES+=compiler > > >> I mean: many port Makefiles are affected, in the sense that when built >> on Intel/AMD the ports just work because Uses/compiler.mk is sucked in >> automatically, but it is not on ARM. >> > > But do they need Uses/compiler.mk ? If so then it might be someone > screwed up, if they don't actually need it then that would be why it's > not specified. > > >> So, shall I report a bug on all the ports that use COMPILER_TYPE, or >> is there a way to have ARM trigger Uses/compiler.mk? >> > > If they use/require COMPILER_TYPE and don't specify USES+= compiler then > I would log a bug for each port and let the ports manager take care of > it as it's probably a change in default behavior that has caused the > mess... how many are we talking about? 10+, 100+, 1000+? > > Another (additional) thought is that if amd64/i386 is automatically pulling in Uses/compiler.mk when it is not explicitly requested, one could consider that in itself a (the) bug. -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?561105DD.1030903>