On 9/12/2012 12:40 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Den 12/09/2012 kl. 11.29 skrev Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org>: > >> On 09/11/2012 02:52 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote: >>> So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports >>> with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? >> >> Unfortunately it isn't that simple. We already have a >> statistically significant number of ports that don't even compile >> with gcc 4.2.1. How many compilers do we expect the users to >> install? :) > > If a port doesn't compile with the default compiler in base, I expect > that port to add a build dependency on the compiler that it actually > does compiles with.
Yes, they do this now. The problem is that the set is growing, and the rate of growth is increasing. > Of course, I hope to not have 6 different > compilers installed on my system, but the list of build or runtime > dependencies are at the discretion of the port (maintainer). As you > (I think) said, we can't force port maintainers to patch their ports > to support clang. Those are unrelated issues. Please re-read the bits of my post that you snipped. The overwhelming majority of problems we have with compiling ports now would be fixed by having a modern version of gcc as the official (i.e., supported) "ports compiler." The clang efforts would be a parallel track. Doug _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
