Hi,
Personally, I object to the idea of removing (perfectly functional)
compiler options from users, the vast majority of which will get them
via the binary tarballs and thus the dependency chain is not an issue
(the libgccN ports are very light weight, once built) just to cater to
the needs of a very small (but at times vocal ;)) sub-set of users
running completely outdated OSes.
To give a more concrete example, in your list you drop gcc 11-13. Now,
we already know gcc14 has certain nuances what means some things have
issues. So I can easily imagine some users being somewhat inconvenienced
by dropping gcc13, which is working just fine.
So if you do this, please follow your suggestion of *only* dropping them
on these ancient OSes where you want to limit the build deps. For the
other OSes I request the flexibility of offering all major GCC versions
is kept.
Chris
On 20/11/2024 1:17 pm, Ken Cunningham wrote:
Hi Riccardo, yes need your input!
Reasoning for list I offerred:
apple-gcc42 stays, of course. unique and needed on 10.4
gcc4.8 … tenfourfox
gcc5 … for the java compiler used in pdftoolkit on older systems
gcc7 … current default compiler used for 5 years now on 10.4/5, well known, but
staring to be a few things it can’t build, hence the pressure to upgrade
gcc10 .. last one that builds without c++11 … little used, but we need a
fallback about here, so this is a guess as to a good fallback
gcc14 … current, has been used for the past year or so as the default compiler
on ppc (by a small number of people TBH)
If this is to be useful and worth doing, the list needs to be shortish.
Another could be added later I suppose, but would be some pain.
All others would be dropped, (except the bootstraps) as anything they built
would potentially ABI breaking due to mismatched libs.
On Nov 20, 2024, at 02:16, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mott...@libero.it> wrote:
Hi Ken,
I think in the past, I asked for something similar.
Two questions:
1) if a user wants a compiler beyond the "golden list"? will you remove the
ports alltogether or will it just mean for him more compilation because it builds another
libgcc?
2) can we start with a minimal list and then "tweak" things if we discover some
software not building and add e.g. one or two versions later?
Ken Cunningham wrote:
The list of uniquely useful gcc compilers might be as short as:
gcc-4.8, gcc5, gcc7, gcc10, and gcc-14.
All those already build on the older systems, and are at least a manageable
list of versions to maintain.
Could we ask for thoughts and possible get consensus that the list of gcc
compilers supported by MacPorts be shortened to a list such as that?
Making this list is I think a trade-off between a newer compiler breaking old
code and capability of also compiling newer software.
My favorite is usually:
gcc4.8 (very good for old stuff... very stable everywhere and never found the
need to use gcc 4.2 instad of gcc 4.8 except to stick with apple versions)
gcc 6.5 : best "classic" compiler on 10.5/10.6, reliable, definitely to be
included in list
gcc 8 : first "modern" compiler
and then... gcc12 or 13 just because I used them long time and gcc14 is new,
undecdided about which to choose
I think gcc5 can be dropped.. either 4.8 or 6.5 should do
gcc7 has been for a year the newest compiler on 10.5 for me, but can it be
replaced by 6.5 or gcc8?
gcc10: could we try do drop it and have latest?
gcc14 - I have used it very little on MacOS - but I do on linux and it is very
finky...
