On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 10:53:26 +0100, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026/10/28 02:41, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote: > > I'd like to drop ports-gcc from build dependency of libxml. > > > Why? To use it as dependency of gcc which is required for cobol. > > > > To do it, I need to switch libxml to autotools instead of meson. > > Something is strange here because libxml was still using autoconf when > it was switched to ports-gcc to fix build. (Perhaps libxml required a > newer C standard at one point and then switched back, this does seem > unlikely though. Also I would think that if libxml does currently build > with base-gcc, we can't really expect it to keep doing so, and we don't > have bulk build machines using base-gcc any more to alert us to this > happening). >
May something had happened with gcc-4 in base? or bfd? I don't know, and without the error it is hard to say. Anyway, their README states: All code must conform to C89 and pass the GitLab CI tests. Add regression tests if possible. https://github.com/GNOME/libxml2/blob/master/README.md what reads good enough to be on safe side. > > Here a diff which was tested on my hppa VM. > > > > It builds, and it doesn't need gcc. > > > > Not sure about lib bump, I increased it to be on safe side. > > > > Ok? > > I'd really like to avoid adding more dependencies to the build of gcc > as used by the majority of the ports tree (i.e. for those ports using it > for C, C++, Fortran). > > If supporting other languages in GCC adds new dependencies can those > langs be knocked out via a bootstrap flavour for the usual ports builds? > (this also helps avoid bottlenecks if they add much additional build time). > > So far cobol is the first language (and seems the only one) which brings new dependency. I can limit it only on non GCC in base platforms, but it makes a bit different build for that beast that I don't like neigher. Adding here one more copy with minimal patchset from gcc makes support it a bit more tricky. -- wbr, Kirill
