svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...

[John Marino]

On 3/27/2014 17:48, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 2014-03-27 11:44, John Marino wrote:
>> On 3/27/2014 17:39, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree completely with you. I don't understand why we remove ports that
>>> are working perfectly fine, except where broken or no upstream and there
>>> are security concerns. As a user I hate this. I still want older gcc and
>>> tcl. Portage has *32* versions of GCC while we have 4. For me, picking a
>>> development platform is all about which packages are available to test
>>> the portability of my code.
>>
>> To be pedantic, you are neglecting my work:
>>   lang/gnat-aux (expiring)
>>   lang/gcc47-aux
>>   lang/gcc49-aux
>>   lang/gnatdroid-armv5
>>   lang/gnatdroid-armv7
>>
>> so that's 5 more right off the bat.  And they differ from the vanilla
>> lang/gccXX, otherwise they could be combined.
>>
> 
> I don't care or know what those are. I only care about the main GCC
> ports in my count. I also did not include the ADA gcc compiler in my
> portage count.

Well, then you are being ingenuous.  Three of those ports compile C,
C++, Fortran and ObjC in addition to Ada.  In many use cases, they are
more powerful than the "main" compilers of the same version.  They
different count as a legitimate versions of gcc.  The latter are cross
compilers to android, so yes, non-ada users should be interested -- I
would count them.

John