On 9/12/2012 1:22 AM, Jerry wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000 > Doug Barton articulated: > >> What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for >> years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6) >> as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed >> to support this. Fortunately, that goal is much more easily achieved >> than fixing ports to build and run with clang. (It's harder than it >> sounds because there are certain key libs that define some paths >> depending on what compiler they were built with, but still easier >> than dealing with clang in the short term.) > > That is a well thought out, highly intuitive and completely doable > idea. Therefore it will be ignored.
No, it'll be ignored because I suggested it. :) > It seems that the FreeBSD authors are more concerned with the > licensing language of GCC than in getting a fully functioning port's > compiler into the FreeBSD base system. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting putting the "ports compiler" into the base. I'm suggesting that it be managed as a port, just like pkg is. This works fine for the ports that are already hard-coding compiler dependencies, and mostly worked for me back when I get it a test run when I made the suggestion years ago. The few glitches I (and others who have done it since) ran into just need some elbow grease applied. By keeping ports-related things in the ports tree we gain a huge amount of agility, and lose the concerns about licensing in the base. It's a win/win. Doug _______________________________________________ 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"
