On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 05:18:55PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 08:59:47PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > > There may be a followup commit if people feel like moving back consumers > > to a default COMPILER line makes sense, mail to follow. > > > Here's said email. kmos added a COMPILER line to the following ports > > because of libnotify (commit messages looked consistent so I doubt I > > mised one). > > > audio/gmpc > > geo/geoclue2 > > sysutils/tray-app > > www/uget > > x11/gnome/settings-daemon > > x11/mate/caja > > x11/mate/settings-daemon > > > If I revert the COMPILER addition in said ports, they still build on > > sparc64. However libnotify looks like an active project and its > > main/only use is gui programs, so most of them already need a more > > recent compiler, and I'd hate to waste Kurt's time on something he > > already fixed. > > > Here's the -current list of devel/libnotify > > consumers using the default COMPILER = base-clang base-gcc value, > > along with the reason why they weren't built in the last sparc64 bulk: > > > mail/evolution missing dep webkitgtk4 > > productivity/osmo missing dep webkitgtk4 > > x11/gnome-mplayer old port, libnotify header error > > x11/mate/notification-daemon missing dep webkitgtk4 > > x11/pidgin-libnotify old port, libnotify header error > > > Here's the diff that reverts the COMPILER addition in libnotify > > consumers. It slightly decreases the amounts of deps needed to build > > those ports, but as far as I'm concerned, these ports can stay as is > > and I'd happily drop the diff. > > > Kurt, others: thoughts? > > I don't have strong feelings either way. base-gcc is generally a much > quicker compiler than ports-gcc, so it could be a decent time saver > on more complex ports. Theoretially reverting them will also give more > ports that may still build on the other base-gcc arches that we don't > build packages for.
I prefer reverting but I don't feel strongly about it. The now outdated comments should be removed/fixed in any case.
