Re: A better method to require compiler features

[nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:29:06AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> There is another problem, which I think is entirely separable (until I
> saw this proposal I wans't so sure).  That is that it's not a great
> approach to build a tree and require 3 different built gcc versions.
> Once you are going to build one, you, as far as I can tell, might as
> well build a pretty recent one, and use that any time you need better
> than base.   E.g. on netbsd-9, just use gcc10 and skip ever building 8
> and 9.  Or maybe higher than 10.   But I think this is orthogonal to the
> features proposal you have made.

IMO the proposal only establishes that an existing compiler is "not
good enough". We can work out what to do afterwards - whether it
should result in a package outright failing to build or GCC 10
always being pulled should IMO be a user choice.