There's possibly a few good reasons. For instance, better organization means
easier troubleshooting and finding bugs. It could mean easier maintenance and
upgrading. It would also be easier to know for sure which file is being used:
the one in the base system, or the one from ports, when it is a
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Sid wrote:
> How about going with a toolchain directory for the base system only. It
> would use shared files, and have subdirectories specific to clang, gcc, or
> other compiling components or versions. This way it is both modular and
> organized.
>
And non-stan
How about going with a toolchain directory for the base system only. It would
use shared files, and have subdirectories specific to clang, gcc, or other
compiling components or versions. This way it is both modular and organized.
For instance: /usr/toolchain/bin/, /usr/toolchain/sbin/, and
/usr
Any drastic change would have to be done in the head branch.
What about keeping ports' compilers as they are, by not using
/usr/local/toolchain/* at all.
Then going with the directory for the base system. For instance:
/usr/toolchain/bin/, /usr/toolchain/sbin/, and /usr/toolchain/lib/ for share
On 30 Jun 2017, at 21:35, Sid wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it make sense for toolchains, compilers and their libraries to have
> their own dedicated top level directories like something under
> /usr/toolchain/ and /usr/local/toolchain/ in the latest FreeBSD versions? It
> would be easier for maintenanc
On 2017-Jun-30, at 1:35 PM, Sid wrote:
> Wouldn't it make sense for toolchains, compilers and their libraries to have
> their own dedicated top level directories like something under
> /usr/toolchain/ and /usr/local/toolchain/ in the latest FreeBSD versions? It
> would be easier for maintenan
