On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich <de...@bluelife.at>wrote:
> I still think this is the wrong approach and I won't maintain all those > clang patches in the official port. The problem that I see is that we are > diverging from upstream vbox too much and end up maintaining a very special > usecase and a few dozen patches on our own. We would be the only one to > build with clang so with every release we need to update our patches and > add more to keep it building with clang. This will need someone that want's > to do it for the next few years. > > Since the beginning of vbox on FreeBSD we tried to stay close to upstream > sources and push patches to upstream first. This has worked good for us and > has created a good relationship to them. > > So we have 3 options: > > - I step down and wish you all the best. There are a few smart people > working on vbox now so it should not be an issue for the project. > > - Someone clones the vbox ports and maintains the clang version in the > portstree. > > - We try to push as many patches upstream and nag them until they accept > them. This might also interest some Mac OS X people. > > I will talk to the vbox developers to find out what they think of clang > and if someone is working on updating the recompiler from qemu which would > make a full clang build possible. > Well I hope that you don't have to leave the maintainership of the port. VirtualBox has a lot of dependencies, and it is very hard to keep everything on track and working, so I appreciate your efforts. I hope that VirtualBox upstream can accept our patches. -- Craig _______________________________________________ freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-emulation-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
