Any objections to swapping base compilers to make gcc4.7 the default?
justin at shiningsilence.com
Fri Feb 1 08:40:58 PST 2013
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:
> 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...
More information about the Users