From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 27 23:03:44 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 52E4269D; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:03:44 +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 288382718; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.25] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FEE43B8C; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:03:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <53ADF824.4070401@marino.st> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:03:00 +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 , John Marino Subject: Re: svn commit: r359090 - head/lang/gcc47 References: <201406241448.s5OEmqQ9057556@svn.freebsd.org> <53A991D8.1040403@marino.st> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Gerald Pfeifer , ports-committers@freebsd.org 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: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:03:44 -0000 On 6/28/2014 00:10, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, John Marino wrote: >>> [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. > > Bootstrapping (or not) always is a tradeoff. > > To provide faster builds for users of the default lang/gcc and > older branches, which should be rather stable, I am defaulting > those to not bootstrap. This is based on feedback I received > over the years in favor of faster build times. > > Users can always opt to enable that option if they desire so, > of course. Well, again, the (in)stability of a branch is not why would choose to bootstrap. In the case of gcc 4.2.1 building current gcc, I would *always* bootstrap. In other words, it has mainly to do with the compiler used to build gcc. For that matter, I would also bootstrap if clang was building gcc. This is why changing the bootstrap option default simply because no more releases on a branch are coming makes zero sense to me. If branch stability is the criterion for the option default, you might as well switch it on the first release as the subsequent ones are strictly bug fix releases. John