In message <7lr3bokh5hjtbsjyqx6wo32mr67vrot6lgdpzyhqa2cb4mukdg@5ysgrir6c6e3> , M athieu Arnold writes: > > > --rvbp2a45ysht736l > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 12:11:21PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > > The binutils in our ports tree was the last binutils to support the Gold= > =20 > > linker. A previous exp-run for 2.45.1 showed us that a number of ports=20 > > failures were due to the missing linker. > >=20 > > I've decided to import binutils 2.47 into ports. I think the path forward= > =20 > > is to address ports failures due do the removed feature. > >=20 > > Do we want to rename the current binutils to binutils244 and import 2.47 = > as=20 > > binutils? Or would going "cold turkey" be advisable? > > Well, how many ports break ? If it's like 10 obscure leaf ports that are > dead upstream, going cold turkey can work, if it's like 100 or more with > more ports depending on them that won't be available any more, please > ask for an exp-run and fix them before updating.
I've submitted an exp-run PR and we will find out. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <[email protected]> FreeBSD UNIX: <[email protected]> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <[email protected]> Web: https://nwtime.org e**(i*pi)+1=0
