From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 7 23:40:13 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@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 A8147B5; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:40:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 784DB15D5; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEF643B4E; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:39:55 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:39:37 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lev@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:40:13 -0000 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