Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 03:34:32 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? Message-ID: <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org> References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Dimitry. You wrote 8 =D1=84=D0=B5=D0=B2=D1=80=D0=B0=D0=BB=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 3:24:3= 4: >> And it seems, that most of USE_GCC-equipped ports pull all this developm= ent >> toolkit for nothing! DA> Well, some ports can be more or less difficult to get building with DA> clang. So depending on whether the maintainer(s) wish to choose the way DA> of least resistance, they will sometimes decide to set USE_GCC. I'm not speaking about BUILD. I'm speaking about RUN. Why do I need compi= ler, assembler, linker & Ko to run pre-build software? DA> Since a lot (maybe even most?) of modern software requires something way DA> newer than our old gcc in base, and 10.0 and later ship without gcc by DA> default, it is logical to use lang/gcc in such cases too. Yep. It is not logical to have gcc + binutils + libraries as RUNTIME dependency. Especially -- one with java (!) support. Does ANYBODY need crippled gcc-based Java support at all?! And pull it for KERNEL MODULES?! 0.5G doesn't looks a lot by current standards, I understand :( >> Maybe, it is time to make USE_GCC work as if ":build" is specified by >> default? And, yes, add additional port with gcc RUNTIME? DA> As far as I know, this is a feature still in the works for pkgng. E.g. DA> using one port work directory for multiple packages, for example -libs, DA> -devel and so on. Although some people tend to hate such modularization DA> with great passion. Paint for more bikesheds... :-) I have mixed feeling about such modularization in general myself, but not in case of USE_GCC, as libgcc.so + libstdc++.so is a tiiiiiiny fraction of = full binutils + gcc package, and on non-developers system there is no need to have 0.5G of toolchain only because some software were build by this tooclahin on our build cluster! And I have feeling, that right now many cases of USE_GCC=3Dany could be replaced with USE_GCC=3Dany:build and some "magic" to link with libgcc/libstdc++ statically. Without any modularization of packages and pkgng support. --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1228142552.20140208033432>