On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:03:29PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Matthias Kilian <k...@outback.escape.de>
> wrote:
> > Also, I've no idea wether --with-clang=${CC} will work after the
> > switch to clang. On the other hand, the diff is just a workaround,
>
> > +MODGHC_SETUP_CONF_ARGS += --with-gcc=${CC} --with-clang=${CC}
>
>
> Hi Kili,
>
> I'm curious why this is there at all, I mean --with-clang=${CC} -- if
> I understand policy, then i386/amd64 are not going to be migrated to
> clang anytime soon and clang is default only for arm64 (new port which
> is not supported by in tree gcc) where ghc does not exist yet. So my
> curiosity and question why to bother with it at all?
We're just shaking the ports tree, seeing what bugs fall out.
Seriously, removing all traces of unjustified hardcoded gccs is good.
There are probably going to still be ports where things may want to know.
In any case, having configury that explicitly says "hey this is not called
gcc, so it's not gcc" is... simple-minded.
That's just your usual ports tree stuff: a sweep of 9000+ ports, weeding
out the trivial stuff, so that we can actually spend a few hours on the
remaining stuff.
Cabal is somewhat annoying, because it takes out a large portion of
the tree, so it's somewhat important to take care of it.
So does boost, for that matter...
