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 _______________________________________________ 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"
