[CFH] FreeBSD 10 and ports

[Charles Swiger]

Hi--

On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:50:03PM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote:
>> As we all know FreeBSD 10 brings a new compiler along, and for that we need to get ports on the right
>> track. I have done several exp-runs on the current src and we still have a lot of fallouts. We
>> would like to ask you to have a look [1] at the failed ports and help to fix them. We will start this week
>> an i386 exp-run to see how the status is.
>> [ ... ]
> 
> Didn't a sort of consensus when switching to clang for base was
> discussed, was that ports would start use a port-provided version of gcc
> ? The adoption of the ports gcc was stalled due to the unability to make
> exp-runs, AFAIK.

It sounds like you want the ports tree to come with USE_GCC set to something
(what?) by default.  Well, that seems ... reasonable, certainly if it proves
difficult to identify which individual ports have GCC'isms.

> What you are proposing is de-facto forking the whole open-source code
> base. This cannot work, and in fact steals the FreeBSD resources for
> something which has absolutely no relevance for FreeBSD project.

I would agree that forking the whole open-source code base isn't a relevant
problem for FreeBSD project to solve.

There are folks who find the exposure of clang to a widely used collection of
software such as the FreeBSD ports collection valuable, and are motivated to
fix any genuine issues found with Clang/LLVM.

(At least once some of them recover from WWDC, anyway. :)

> Ports should not be forced to use clang, either a ports gcc work
> should be finished, or cc in HEAD switched back to gcc.  This is
> de-facto blocker for the 10.0.

I don't understand why the base system compiler and the ports compiler
would need to be linked.  But I remember old SunOS 3 and 4 boxes
which came with a kernel compiler and needed Sun's acc or a gcc toolchain
for almost everything else...

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck