On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Ports should use port-provided compiler, and be untangled from the base
> toolchain. I believe that forcing ports committers to port 20K+ packages
> to clang is a waste of the FreeBSD resources and is is destined to fail
> despite the efforts.
I ag
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, David Chisnall wrote:
> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to
> start disconnecting things from the default build, starting with
> gcc. I've been running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think
> all of the ports that don't build with clang are now
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 05:24:27PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Ports should use port-provided compiler, and be untangled from the base
> toolchain.
And when I get the use of the build cluster back, it's one of the bits
of code I intend to work on. But we're not going to be able to do that
On 26 Jan 2013, at 15:22, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Your initial assesment of the problem as a misbehaviour of the combination
> of filtering and versioning made no sense to me, I asked you to provide
> the isolated test case, which you did not.
The test case in the PR was such a test case. l
On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> The situation is not too different from the fortran removal: for many reasons
> it is convenient to use a pre-packaged compiler for many ports. Gcc 4.2.1 is
> also becoming obsolete and is really difficult to maintain..
Removing it before all
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 02:53:16AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > I don't care much about gcc in current.
>
> clang, even on -9, can't build the following:
>
> - most of kde
> - graphics/GraphicsMagick
> - editors/emacs21
> - ww
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:23:58AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2013, at 19:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of
> > the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g.,
> > are we fine with broken C
Hello;
Sorry for top-posting: I am in a mobile device that doesnt know better.
I am aware that openoffice is also broken due to stlport.
The situation is not too different from the fortran removal: for many reasons
it is convenient to use a pre-packaged compiler for many ports. Gcc 4.2.1 is
al
On 25 Jan 2013, at 19:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of
> the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g.,
> are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ?
Please can you stop the FUD here? It really isn't help
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> I don't care much about gcc in current.
clang, even on -9, can't build the following:
- most of kde
- graphics/GraphicsMagick
- editors/emacs21
- www/libxul19
any one of which I would consider showstoppers for making a gcc-less
On 01/25/2013 16:51, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2013-01-25 21:54, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as
the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things
easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in
-current but for 9.x
On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 25/01/2013 21:35 Warner Losh said the following:
>> This has been talked about in a vague way for years.
>
> Warner,
>
> just a nitpick, couldn't resist - sorry, so for years we talked about the
> magic
> 10.x release to become GPL-free?
>
on 25/01/2013 21:35 Warner Losh said the following:
> This has been talked about in a vague way for years.
Warner,
just a nitpick, couldn't resist - sorry, so for years we talked about the magic
10.x release to become GPL-free?
Or was it just a goal for 'some day'?
--
Andriy Gapon
_
On 2013-01-25 21:54, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as
the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things
easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in
-current but for 9.x it is simply unacceptable.
Actually, clan
On 01/25/2013 15:44, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
...
I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of
the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g.,
are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ?
The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying.
I would prefer
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David C
On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
Hi All,
In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd
On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:41 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start
> disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been
> running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that
> don'
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start
> >> discon
On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 25/01/2013 16:10 David Chisnall said the following:
>> On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following:
This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at
>
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start
>> disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been
>> runn
on 25/01/2013 16:10 David Chisnall said the following:
> On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following:
>>> This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at
>>> DevSummits in the past, without any objections being r
On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following:
>> This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at
>> DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised.
>
> A simple test - has there been a core decision that
on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following:
> This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at
> DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised.
A simple test - has there been a core decision that no GPL software must be
shipped with 10.x?
--
Andriy
On 25 Jan 2013, at 11:31, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> To clarify: there is no plans to not ship any GPLed code for 10.x.
This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at
DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised. If this is no
longer a goal, then that
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start
> disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been
> running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports t
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:47:19AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> > I think all of the ports that don't build with clang are now explicitly
> > depending on gcc.
>
> Nope. We switched some of the most notorious failures, but hundreds
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> I think all of the ports that don't build with clang are now explicitly
> depending on gcc.
Nope. We switched some of the most notorious failures, but hundreds
more remain -- mostly leaf ports.
Without the ability to run -exp buil
Hi All,
In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start
disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been
running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that don't
build with clang are now explicitly depending on gcc. Does any
29 matches
Mail list logo
