Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:26:34 -0700 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: "Garrett Cooper" <yanefbsd@gmail.com> Cc: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc versions following upgrade 6.3 >7.0 Message-ID: <200807221026.35061.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0807220816y7817c29g263afc77786f16b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <AB217A93D96E483695869A497569A44A@sleuth64> <20080722081630.GA86993@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <7d6fde3d0807220816y7817c29g263afc77786f16b0@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 08:16:38 Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:07:53AM -0700, David Southwell wrote: > > > > The "base system" does not add anything to the ports/pkg database. The > > reason you have gcc 4.1.3 and gcc 4.2.5 on your machine is because some > > other port/package depended/depends on them. pkg_info -R will solve > > that mystery. > > > > As I said before: some ports/packages may require a newer (or older) > > version of GCC, in which case, you'll end up with two (or more) versions > > of gcc on your system -- one in the base and one (or more) managed via > > ports. > > > > Regardless of what Garrett and others say about how multiple compilers > > on a system "works great", I do not advocate it. There are many catches > > which can/will surprise you down the road, especially with regards to > > library linking order, symbol versioning, and a couple other things. > > I'm sorry, but in my eyes it's risky behaviour. We've been down this > > road before back when perl was in the base system, for similar reasons. > > The complication and mess stems from the fact that you'll need to > compile components using an absolute prefix to the compiler or have a > script which manages gcc and the binutils as a series of symlinks > (Gentoo Linux does that). > > Not all projects unfortunately have wizened up to the fact that > keeping something cross-compile safe is the best way to go so things > may fail unless you have robust compile tools scripts to help manage > everything. > > Cheers, > -Garrett Thanks guys this has been very interesting discussion. I have learnt quite a bit. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200807221026.35061.david>