Gerald,
Thanks for our excellent explanation. I must admit that I did not think
about various archs. So, now I understand why the PORTREVISION was bumped
and that I don't need to go back and build the ports that were rebuilt
prior to the gcc9-9.1 upgrade. I trust tat portmaster did hte right thing.
(Yes, I suppose that there is a slight risk, but I'll take it!)
Now, why the heck do rust and llvm both have packages that require samba47.
I don't see why they require samba at all, let alone a deprecated version
that will expire in about a week. Since I'm trying to upgrade a package for
amd64, I can't see archs being an issue, so I'm baffled. But that's a
different thread.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:12 PM Lorenzo Salvadore via freebsd-ports <
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Sunday 28 July 2019 20:56, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> > > The description of the commit states:
> > > This includes ports
> > >
> > > - with USE_GCC=yes or USE_GCC=any,
> > > - with USES=fortran,
> > > - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=fortran, and
> > > - with USES=compiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c++0x,
> c++11-lang,
> > > c++11-lib, c++14-lang, c++17-lang, or gcc-c++11-lib
> > > plus, everything INDEX-11 shows with a dependency on lang/gcc9 now.
> > >
> > >
> > > This would appear to me like it did catch a great many ports which are
> > > not build with or any anything to do will gcc, though I am not sure.
> >
> > These ports may not use GCC on your system, or even the majority of
> > systems, but there are systems and situations where they do, and bumping
> > PORTREVISION is a global binary decision for each port considered.
> >
> > > E.g. I thought that USES=compiler:c11 and similar were asking for
> > > c11 semantics from whatever compiler was used but
> >
> > Let's look at your example. ports/Mk/Uses/compiler.mk has the following
> > on USES=compiler:c11:
> >
> > .if ${_COMPILER_ARGS:Mc11}
> > .if !${COMPILER_FEATURES:Mc11}
> > .if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} == gcc) ||
> > (${ARCH} != amd64 && ${ARCH} != i386) # clang not always supported on
> Tier-2
> > USE_GCC= yes
> > CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE= gcc
> > .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} == gcc
> >
> > That is, if a user has set a preference for GCC or for non x86/x86-64
> > platforms, GCC is used.
> >
> > And if there is one legitimate configuration on the planet where a
> > PORTREVISION bump is required, we have to perform it in our repository.
> >
> > (This is not saying I may not have made a mistake somewhere, but in
> > general those bumps do appear necessary.)
> >
> > Gerald
>
> It might be useful to add a command to pkg that bumps PORTREVISION
> for installed packages without really building them again, for those cases
> when users know that they are not affected by the bump.
> I think at the moment this is possible only by manually modifying
> /var/db/pkg/local.sqlite (I never tried).
>
> Lorenzo Salvadore.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
