On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote: >> lang/gcc and lang/gcc46 should be fully compatible, without rebuilds >> necessary. Only when lang/gcc is going to move to GCC 4.7 later this >> year would I consider that. > IMO this highlights the issue that unversioned instances of ports that > really need versioning (like gcc) are a bad idea. It's much better for > users to be able to tie their installations to a particular version, and > then only update when they need to. The fact that someday in the future > users who innocently upgrade lang/gcc will suddenly find that everything > relying on libgcc at runtime is now broken pretty much speaks for itself.
The fact that I would consider that, was not supposed to imply breakage. :-) I was more thinking better optimization and other benefits. In my day job, we have been doing upgrades from GCC 4.x to GCC 4.x+y run-times quite successfully and without any breakage more than once. And we've got many, quite many, users. In other words, if there is a challenge it's not GCC per se, more our packaging of it (and some work Bapt is doing on the packaging infrastructure should help with that). Gerald _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
