Hi,

> On 5 May 2019, at 7:57 pm, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I am sorry for not being clear.
> 
>> If the builds differ, then it needs rev-bumpig.
> 
> The build is immaterial.
> The files that get installed are the important thing.
> 
> If you look through https://packages.macports.org/libgcc9/,
> libgcc9-9.1.0_0.darwin_18.x86_64.tbz2 and
> libgcc9-9.1.0_1.darwin_18.x86_64.tbz2
> install the exact same files, regardless of how they were built.
> Therefore, there was no reason for the rev bump.

That may be the case, but without doing the build its hard to tell apriori.
 A dep changed, in a way that required gccX to be rev-bumped. I felt it better 
to also rev-bump the libgccX just to be safe. That took only took 10secs and a 
bit of time for the buildbots to build. I would rather do this than spend much 
longer double checking each and every binary to see if anything changed in them 
or not.

Chris

> 
> -Marcus
> 
>> On May 5, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Christopher Jones <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5 May 2019, at 4:48 pm, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Greetings.
>>> 
>>> With different versions of isl, the builds of libgccX may be slightly 
>>> different, but if what is installed is *exactly* the same (see, e.g., 
>>> https://packages.macports.org/libgcc9/).
>> 
>> If the builds differ, then it needs rev-bumpig. I’m not sure I understand 
>> your  logic that suggests gccX needs rebuilding, but libgccX does not, when 
>> both are exactly the same build. 
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>>> Since there is no change in what is installed, then rev bumping is not 
>>> necessary.
>>> 
>>> -Marcus
>>> 
>>>> On May 5, 2019, at 8:25 AM, Chris Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> GccX and libgccX are built from exactly the same source, more or less the 
>>>> same build.  Only differ in what gets installed. Both therefore depend on 
>>>> isl, so both needed rev bumping when it was updated.
>>>> 
>>>> Chris
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5 May 2019, at 4:08 pm, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please say a little more about 
>>>>> the rationale behind this change?
>>>>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that only the GCC 
>>>>> compilers (not the libraries) depended on isl.
>>>>> When the isl library name changes, must the compiler also be updated, as 
>>>>> seems to have happened in the change?
>>>>> If so, I will be sure to do so in the future.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, is there an advantage to having the library and compiler revision 
>>>>> be the same?
>>>>> If so, perhaps they should share the same variable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 5, 2019, at 1:40 AM, Chris Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chris Jones (cjones051073) pushed a commit to branch master
>>>>>> in repository macports-ports.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/cac02e0a97f2d7af9f8526b88631d1c3aca8ebf8
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> new cac02e0  libgccX: rev-bump to match gccX following isl update
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cac02e0 is described below
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> commit cac02e0a97f2d7af9f8526b88631d1c3aca8ebf8
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Author: Chris Jones <[email protected]>
>>>>>> AuthorDate: Sun May 5 09:40:08 2019 +0100
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> libgccX: rev-bump to match gccX following isl update
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> lang/gcc6/Portfile | 2 +-
>>>>>> lang/gcc7/Portfile | 2 +-
>>>>>> lang/gcc8/Portfile | 2 +-
>>>>>> lang/gcc9/Portfile | 2 +-
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/lang/gcc6/Portfile b/lang/gcc6/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> index e438b69..5966e88 100644
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --- a/lang/gcc6/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +++ b/lang/gcc6/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ name                gcc6
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> epoch               3
>>>>>> version             6.5.0
>>>>>> revision            4
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -subport             libgcc6 { revision 1 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +subport             libgcc6 { revision 4 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> platforms           darwin
>>>>>> categories          lang
>>>>>> maintainers         nomaintainer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/lang/gcc7/Portfile b/lang/gcc7/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> index a4ce4f4..2f606fe 100644
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --- a/lang/gcc7/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +++ b/lang/gcc7/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ name                gcc7
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> epoch               3
>>>>>> version             7.4.0
>>>>>> revision            3
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -subport             libgcc7 { revision 0 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +subport             libgcc7 { revision 3 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> platforms           darwin
>>>>>> categories          lang
>>>>>> maintainers         nomaintainer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/lang/gcc8/Portfile b/lang/gcc8/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> index 884ee71..2eb4260 100644
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --- a/lang/gcc8/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +++ b/lang/gcc8/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ epoch               4
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> name                gcc8
>>>>>> version             8.3.0
>>>>>> revision            4
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -subport             libgcc8 { revision 3 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +subport             libgcc8 { revision 4 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> platforms           darwin
>>>>>> categories          lang
>>>>>> maintainers         nomaintainer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/lang/gcc9/Portfile b/lang/gcc9/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> index 3a8815d..22278fa 100644
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --- a/lang/gcc9/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +++ b/lang/gcc9/Portfile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ epoch               2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> name                gcc9
>>>>>> version             9.1.0
>>>>>> revision            1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -subport             libgcc9 { revision 0 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +subport             libgcc9 { revision 1 }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> platforms           darwin
>>>>>> categories          lang
>>>>>> maintainers         nomaintainer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to