-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/16/11 10:52 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > 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.
For reference: http://pastebin.com/5ZndHJP1 - -- 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7D4C4ACgkQB8UpO3rKjQ++AgCgpwej7Xvq6t3h/H/6gWSoNrSL sloAn1StoIxb6IfQlT4QX9RV9T/dv4zE =SQzX -----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
