Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/cross/mingw-binutils

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

John Marino <netbsd%marino.st@localhost> writes:

> On 10/9/2012 22:12, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> John Marino<netbsd%marino.st@localhost>  writes:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2012 21:05, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree that we should favour somewhat experimental systems running
>>>> GCC 4.7 rather than more stable ones running GCC 4.1-4.4.
>>>> Personally, I'd rather see the package building with older compiler than
>>>> newer one, downgrading compiler is usually easier path.
>>>
>>> You really need to watch what you say.  That is at least the
>>> fourth time you have implicitly or explicitly insulted DragonFly
>>> on these lists and that is uncalled for.  FYI, DragonFly has two
>>> base compilers and the default compiler is gcc 4.4, still true
>>> for version 3.2 to be released in two weeks.
>>
>> Whether you love it or not, DragonFly is even more on fringe than
>> NetBSD, which is not the single platform we support.
>> So, please, stop putting cart before horse.
>
> Lack of popularity doesn't give you the right to disparage any
> of the platforms that have chosen pkgsrc as their package
> repository.  If not for the NetBSD-specific emulators, DragonFly
> would have at least the same number of packages building as the
> NetBSD counterparts do. Frankly, pkgsrc really should be split
> off of NetBSD into a separate project which might address some
> of this second-class citizen vibes I'm getting.

It is a separate project already, but that doesn't mean that DragonFly
must be treated as system no. 1 and all others ignored.

>> It doesn't matter whether they are declared unmaintained by GCC developers,
>> we are not talking about developing GCC. We're talking about building
>> software packages. Systems we support do use GCC 4.1, sometimes GCC 3.4 even,
>> and those systems are more important to us than not-yet-released Debian.
>
> Unreleased for a matter of days.  But I believe you mean it.

It doesn't matter if it is days or years. It still doesn't make Debian
platform no. 1 for pkgsrc. It doesn't make GCC 4.1 obsolete either,
whether you like it or not.

>> I'm not avoiding GCC 4.6 as you're trying to present. But I'm concerned
>> that you consistently ignore those who use GCC 4.1.
>> You could have solved it in backwards-compatible way, pkgsrc framework
>> is powerful enough for that.
>
> Alright, you give me the standard solution to this problem right now.
> Patching the source is not really an option.  Maybe it's a
> single patch, but there could be dozens of violations in an
> older package.  I'm guessing -Werror removal would be the
> standard way.  Luckily there doesn't seem to be too many
> packages with -Werror set.

Have you ever looked at pkgsrc/mk/bsd.hacks.mk and pkgsrc/mk/compiler/gcc.mk?
If not, take a look at it and stop rolling crude uncontrolled hacks again and 
again.
It is a separate project that has its own rules which differ from DragonFly.


-- 
HE CE3OH...