From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 7 07:12:26 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 3E46D240; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.critical.ch (mx.critical.ch [IPv6:2001:1620:f05::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C39346A0; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:12:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wiggles.critical.ch (snow.ethz.ch [129.132.80.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.critical.ch (8.14.7/8.14.7/critical-1.0) with ESMTP id s277CJO8093109; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:12:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ehaupt@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:12:19 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt To: Alexey Dokuchaev Subject: Re: svn commit: r345067 - in head/devel/smv: . files Message-Id: <20140307081219.fc2a4fbeacf6ba0f7226b18b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140307021059.GA42209@FreeBSD.org> References: <201402191122.s1JBM2Rl097476@svn.freebsd.org> <20140307021059.GA42209@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 07 Mar 2014 07:12:26 -0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:22:02AM +0000, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > New Revision: 345067 > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/345067 > > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r345067/ > > > > +USE_GCC= yes > > [...] > > + EXEC = smv > > +-CC = gcc > > ++CC ?= gcc > > Was this part intended? It's was not mentioned in the log. How hard Yes. This port was not CC safe. Without it gcc would obviously be forced and failed on systems withouth gcc in the base i.e. 10.0-RELEASE. > would it be to fix the port to build properly with Clang? I don't know, I haven't tried. Why don't you give it a try? My priority at the moment is staging along with things I see on the go. There is always more that could be done. > Also, INSTALL_MAN was heavily abused instead of INSTALL_DATA, it > seems. Agree. Now that you've noticed it and thanks to the released approval policy you can go ahead and fix it right away! :-) Emanuel