lang/gcc46

[Kevin Oberman]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh
<sunpoet at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:03:14AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell at dataix.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Gerald,
>> >
>> > As a request once again similiar to one I have made in the past... Would it be possible yet to slow down the update process for the gcc46 port ?
>> >
>> > This is turning out to be quite the pain in the U-Know-What with version flapping and rebuilding because a port depends on it. If I am correct it is updated weekly. I caught the tail end of the previous update and the day after it was bumped to the next snapshot version & by the time both of those were finished the port had once again been bumped to _1.
>> >
>> > Is there anything that could be done to stabalize this ... ?
>> >
>> > At this point I am left for the manual intervention of using +IGNOREME files or excluding by whatever means neccesary as weekly updates seem completely unneccesary now that alot of ports are shifting to depend on gcc46.
>> >
>> > Can a gcc46-devel port be branched for those that absolutely need the weekly updates ?
>> +1
>>
>> gcc46 is used by so many ports that I am continually re-building it
>> and on slow machines, this takes a while. How about a gcc46-devel port
>> that gets the regular updates and let gcc46 stay stable when there are
>> not major fixes?
>
> We have lang/gcc already. This port is created for perferred gcc releases
> (4.6.2 currently). What we're waiting for is a bsd.gcc.mk update to allow
> users build ports with lang/gcc instead of lang/gcc46.

Ahh. I see the issue. I have not looked at bsd.gcc.mk, but it does not
seem like this should be too difficult. Just a matter of the right
person having the time. Would ports specifying gcc46 need to be
touched?
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: kob6558 at gmail.com