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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to