On Thursday May 18 2017 19:05:31 Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>Yes. Therefore, we need to add a libgcc6 subport, much like the existing 
>libgcc45 subport.

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 
rebuild?
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.

R.

Reply via email to