Any objections to swapping base compilers to make gcc4.7 the default?

[Justin Sherrill]

Sounds like there wouldn't be any noticeable/unfixable effect, then.

It's always easy to agree with something when I'm not doing the actual
work, of course.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, John Marino <dragonflybsd at marino.st> wrote:

> So
> 1) They are broken permanently until A) somebody patches them or B)
> somebody updates the package which has a good chance of working with gcc47
> 2) They aren't broken if you use DRAGONFLY_CCVER=gcc44 which we have done
> in the pkg themselves for those pkgs hopelessly broken on gcc4.7. The ones
> that can be patches do not feature this.  That shouldn't stop people from
> using DRAGONFLY_CCVER on packages known to previously build.  It's a
> legitimate technique.
> 3) this is the latest excerpt bulk build (follows)
> The gnustep-base is a separate multiplatform-disaster.  The rest of the
> failures are leaf packages.  Nothing too major.  Building with gcc44
> probably gets you another 100 packages I would think, at most.
>
> pkgsrc bulk build report
> ========================
>
> DragonFly 3.3/i386
> Compiler: gcc
>
> Build start: 2013-01-26 00:26
> Build end:   2013-01-30 20:15
>
> Total number of packages:      12037
>   Successfully built:          11152
>   Failed to build:               149
>   Depending on failed package:    72
>   Explicitly broken or masked:   598
>   Depending on masked package:    66
>
> Packages breaking the most other packages
>
> Package                               Breaks Maintainer
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> -------------
> devel/gnustep-base                        22 rh at NetBSD.org
> graphics/opencv                            6 anthony.mallet at laas.fr
> parallel/mpi-ch                            5 asau at inbox.ru
> textproc/cabocha                           5 obache at NetBSD.org
> emulators/qemu                             4 pkgsrc-users at NetBSD.org
> graphics/kdegraphics3                      3 pkgsrc-users at NetBSD.org
> devel/ruby-thrift                          3 tonnerre at NetBSD.org
> devel/xulrunner10                          3 tnn at NetBSD.org
> emulators/wine-devel                       3 adam at NetBSD.org
> games/plib                                 3 rh at NetBSD.org
>
>
>
>
> On 2/1/2013 16:40, Justin Sherrill wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can think of: can you quantify which packages aren't
>> building?  It sounds like this will break some packages, at least
>> temporarily, but I don't know which.
>>
>> The ideal scenario is to never have anyone need to/care to put
>> DRAGONFLY_CCVER into their mk.conf.  That might be likely if the
>> packages affected are old enough/rarely used enough.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130201/027da39d/attachment-0015.html>