-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/11 6:09 PM, Max Horn wrote: > Jack, > > Am 21.10.2011 um 21:53 schrieb Jack Howarth: > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:32:08PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote: > > [...] > >>> Is the possible benefit for a tiny minority of xcode-4.2 users >>> on Snow Leopard really worth all this hassle? >> >> Considering that i386 fink represents the most testing clang will >> ever see against GPLv3 software as a 32 bit compiler, I would say >> yes. > > Worth it for *whom*, though? As I see it, this does *not* benefit > for the Fink project. It may be a benefit for the clang team; or > maybe for people who are interested in using clang for its own > good. While these may be noble goals, I think it is misleading to > claim that these benefit *Fink*. So let's drop that particular item > from the discussion -- it is noble, but irrelevant. > > We have very limited resources, and I don't think we can afford to > squander them on things purely based on noble intentions. If it > turns out that going the "clang path" is the most effective for us > (has best ratio of effort to user experience or so), we should > consider it, but *only* for that reason. > >> Currently fink is broken for Xcode 4.2 on SL. We have two ways to >> go. >> >> 1) Backwards by implementing a path-prefix-gcc42 of gcc-4.2 based >> compiler wrappers only to be used for 10.6 running llvm-gcc as >> the system compiler. > > This sounds more appealing to me than trying to check several > thousand packages for whether they compile with clang, and whether > clang compiles them correctly. > >> >> 2) Forwards were we try to do some good for the community by >> testing the clang compiler's i386 code generation. >> >> I would argue that if we don't do 1) then 2) causes little harm. >> So what if the package set if somewhat reduced initially. If the >> user wants the full set, let them revert to Xcode 3.2.6. This >> option at least allows those users who purchased Xcode 4 to >> leverage clang under SL. > > Actually, I think telling users to revert to Xcode 3.2.6 is a > rather lame excuse... I know a lot of people in academia who would > consider this a reason to switch away from Fink to MacPorts, Brew > or just hand-installing software... > > So personally, I'd love to avoid that and get things compatible > with XCode 4.2 by making sure everything gets to use GCC 4.2 by > default. > > > Cheers, Max
Did we actually _confirm_ that Xcode 4.2 comes with gcc-4.2 on 10.6? We've got a user in IRC today who doesn't have it on a fresh install, and Alexander Strange is confident that Xcode 4.2 doesn't ship with gcc-4.2 even on 10.6. I don't have the ability to confirm this for myself, so it would be nice if someone could check. I _do_ know that the "uninstall-devtools" script left gcc-4.2 untouched on my Lion install, so it _looked_ like Xcode 4.2 had it. - -- Alexander Hansen, Ph.D. Fink User Liaison http://finkakh.wordpress.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7D3EkACgkQB8UpO3rKjQ9UrACgm8Lq5GOs5SFxlLnZNV5hxSVw HNwAn33e5AraBBqvBbfgnybrRlh5/Z6t =9S+a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
