On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:16:16PM -0700, K. Macy wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016, Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> wrote: > > > I'll demur just a bit on your points. > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:51:02PM -0700, K. Macy wrote: > > > "we need a compiler to build the system" (a prebuilt package does that > > > just fine), > > > > Well, yes, for a tier-1 machine; and one that is connected to the network. > > > > > I can't speak for the whole universe of users, but I think it's safe > > > to say that most users are not power users who individually configure > > > ports tailored to their needs. > > > > We've certainly tried to provide a migration path away from that, but I > > don't think anyone has statistics about how far along we are. IMHO we > > can't assume it's 100%, or maybe even 80%. > > > > > I think my experiences on Ubuntu [...] are illustrative. > > > > A number of years ago Ubuntu and FreeBSD had barely overlapping audiences: > > end-users and developers. With all the improvements to pkg and tier-1 > > packages I hope that is changing -- the goal of expanding the reach is > > why I supported all the changes I saw being made. > > > > But for me an attraction has always been "you can build it out of the box", > > even if I rarely do it (e.g. I am not working in the kernel/driver area), > > Can clang actually bootstrap from something like lcc? As far as I can tell > you need a fairly advanced C++ compiler just to build that compiler in src > - which already needs to be installed. It's not exactly bootstrapping from > Bourne shell. So I'm not sure "it's self-hosting" is even true, not to > mention that you needed a network connection to get src in the first place. > Thus the whole argument strikes me as circular if not outright deceptive.
Clang needs a pretty complete C++11 compiler and runtime which means modern gcc or clang. -- Brooks
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature