On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top 10 ports that prevent
the most other ports from compiling together prevent 2222 ports from
compilation. So if we fixed those 10 ports we could be at around 2500 ports
not compiling. Thats quite far from your claim of forking 20k programs.
Sorry, I cannot buy the argument. How many patches there are already
in the ports tree to cope with clang incompatibility with gcc ? You may
declare that all of them are application bugs, but it completely misses
the point.
[ snip ]
I believe majority of the broken ports is broken because their maintainer
never saw them being broken with clang just because it's not the default
compiler. Thus by making it the default majority of the problems would just
go away.
Can you, please, read what I wrote ? Fixing _ports_ to compile with
clang is plain wrong. Upstream developers use gcc almost always for
development and testing. Establishing another constant cost on the
porting work puts burden on the ports submitters, maintainers and even
ports users.
This is a good point!
--
DE
_______________________________________________
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
