From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 24 14:58:03 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364E8822; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:58:03 +0000 (UTC) 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 0E2CA230E; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.31.9.106] (unknown [213.225.137.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A91B438EB; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:57:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <53A991D8.1040403@marino.st> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:57:28 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerald Pfeifer , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r359090 - head/lang/gcc47 References: <201406241448.s5OEmqQ9057556@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201406241448.s5OEmqQ9057556@svn.freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:58:03 -0000 On 6/24/2014 16:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Author: gerald > Date: Tue Jun 24 14:48:52 2014 > New Revision: 359090 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/359090 > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r359090/ > > [snip] > Also, since this is now final and stable, no longer bootstrap this port. I'm not following the "don't bootstrap anymore" logic here. This implies that one bootstraps due to active development, which is not what I would claim. I would say unless GCC 4.7.x or later is building this gcc 4.7 port, then bootstrapping by default is a good idea. And it seems that gcc 4.2.1 or clang 3.x is what builds this port by default. John