On Thursday May 18 2017 19:05:31 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>Yes. Therefore, we need to add a libgcc6 subport, much like the existing
That seems like a small change to port:gcc6, almost easier than removing the
libgcc subport completely.
But why is this handled differently that any other port that installs a library
with a new ABI or name, when dependent ports just have to put up, revbump and
Is that under a (proven?) assumption that some applications cannot be rebuilt
against the new ABI? I don't see evidence of a dragonegg port based on gcc6 so
that cannot be the reason.
FWIW, I'm also working on a (PoC) implementation of my idea to provide users
who build from source with an option to get both ports from a single build.
I'll present that as a separate patch to the Portfile. I have the impression
that gcc7 took considerably longer to build than gcc6 so such an option would
be timely for those users.