Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:56:21AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >> As a hacky approach, I not only put GCC_REQD+=4.9 in glibmm's Makefile >> but also the bl3, to force packages that link against it to 4.9. I >> realize this is unsound, as it doesn't force packages that link against >> those to use 4.9. But, with this, gnome-system-monitor builds, which >> means atkmm, pangomm, and gtkmm also build. > > As I said before, please don't do that. It makes the situation even > worse. I have reverted the addition of GCC_REQD to glibmm/buildlink3.mk on HEAD. I left the GCC_REQD in Makefile, as it's true, and in line with what we do now for other packages. For NetBSD <=7 I think it really doesn't matter if glibmm builds or not on head, as nothing that uses it will build. (On the branch, I think the entire set of programs related to glibmm will still be troubled on NetBSD 7 and below, but somewhat better off with the bl3 hack. We'll see, but I am inclined to just let that be and hope for the best.) I would like to focus on getting compiler selection logic going. Comments would be appreciated on how much trouble it will cause to just build gcc with all dependencies dynamically exempted from selection logic. I am really inclined to go there first, and add static exemptions for known packages if needed, and finally to move to bootsrapping in a sub-prefix/different-prefix if it's really necessary.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature