On Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:25:19 +0200, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026/10/20 14:39, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote: > > ports@, > > > > I think GCC49_ARCHS is very misslead and using PORTSGCC_ARCHS instead makes > > sense. > > > @@ -40,10 +40,10 @@ LLD_ARCHS = aarch64 amd64 arm i386 power > > # as well as available for PROPERTIES checks. > > LLVM_ARCHS = aarch64 amd64 arm i386 mips64 mips64el powerpc powerpc64 > > riscv64 sparc64 > > # arches where ports-gcc >4.9 exists. To be used again for modules > > -GCC49_ARCHS = aarch64 alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 mips64 mips64el powerpc > > powerpc64 riscv64 sparc64 > > +PORTSGCC_ARCHS = aarch64 alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 mips64 mips64el powerpc > > powerpc64 riscv64 sparc64 > > > > # arches where there is a C++11 compiler, either clang in base or ports-gcc > > -CXX11_ARCHS = ${CLANG_ARCHS} ${GCC49_ARCHS} > > +CXX11_ARCHS = ${CLANG_ARCHS} ${PORTSGCC_ARCHS} > > DEBUGINFO_ARCHS = aarch64 amd64 > > > > .for PROP in ALL APM BE LE LP64 CLANG GCC4 GCC49 MONO LLVM LUAJIT \ > ^^^^^ > this needs changing too >
As this step? I had the next step with rename gcc4.port.mk to portsgcc.port.mk where I removed that GCC49 completley. -- wbr, Kirill
