Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:39:37 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: lev@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? Message-ID: <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org> <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/8/2014 00:34, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Dimitry. > You wrote 8 февраля 2014 г., 3:24:34: > >>> And it seems, that most of USE_GCC-equipped ports pull all this development >>> 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 compiler, > assembler, linker & Ko to run pre-build software? dynamically linked libraries. libcstd++ libgfortran libquadmath libssp libgcc_s etc,etc > > 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 :( Ah, yes it is. See above. GCC is built with GAS. It needs the GAS that it's configured with. > 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=any could be > replaced with USE_GCC=any:build and some "magic" to link with > libgcc/libstdc++ statically. Without any modularization of packages and > pkgng support. My feeling is that this isn't correct. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F56EB9.4010700>