On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:43:52 +0100, Charlene Wendling wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 16:46:38 +0000 > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > On 2020/01/11 12:36, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 08:50:33AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > > > > Is there any way to phrase this so that we don't have fix > > > > version? This would save recurring updates. > > > > > > Hum... the situation with compilers is confusing enough that having > > > some kind of handle as to which version is which is actually > > > useful, as long as people remember to update. > > > > > > How about a comment in gcc/8/Makefile, reminding us to update the > > > version? > > > > > > > > > > How about just say "gcc 8", and put the comment in gcc/Makefile > > instead? > > > > We will still need to make changes if gcc-9 becomes ports-gcc. I see > your point about the location of the comment, but any location is a best > effort attempt to avoid having out of sync docs. > > We broke the major.minor subdirectory structure with gcc 6 and 8, so > gcc/Makefile (or infrastructure/mk/gcc4.port.mk) may not see > any modification if we bring a newer gcc-8 minor version as well.
Well, it was upstream who changed the versioning scheme from GCC 5 onward. So we will never bring in a gcc 8.x version as a new port, but simply update the existing one. The next import will be lang/gcc/9, and so on. > I'm CC'ing pascal@, in case he has plans already set up with ports-gcc. > >
