b. f. bf1783 at
Mon Aug 6 08:11:04 UTC 2012

On 8/6/12, Doug Barton <dougb at> wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 00:30, b. f. wrote:
>> On 8/6/12, Doug Barton <dougb at> wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2012 08:57, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote:

>>> Just to be clear, you compile stuff with gcc 4.6, that is linked against
>>> libgcc, and then you update to 4.7, with a new libgcc, and everything
>>> still works? If so, that's great, I'm glad to hear that it's not a
>>> problem.
>> For the most part, yes.
> In my mind, this isn't good enough. But I'm not in charge of anything. :)

Oops: I forgot though, that partly due to this policy of not bumping
gcc shared library versions, we have some shared libraries in the base
system that conflict with the shared libraries of the various gcc
ports, and we have been enforcing the right links by inscribing hints
in the binaries to look first in the right gcc port directories.  But
if we update lang/gcc from 4.6.x to another major version (e.g.
4.7.x), the directory changes, and linking for the old binaries will
fail.  So let me qualify my earlier answer: you can keep the old
software working with minimal intervention, for example, by adding a
symlink from the old directory to the new one.

>> I think Gerald was referring to Bapt's plan to make it easier to make
>> multiple packages from a single port, so that those who used packages
>> exclusively could install a package consisting of only the runtime
>> support libraries, rather than the whole compiler suite.
> Universal support for that is years away, minimum.
>> I had
>> patches to do this even without pkgng, but it made things a little
>> more complicated, and didn't seem to be a high priority, so I didn't
>> pursue it.  If people feel that it is important, I could work with
>> Gerald to revive that, or use a knob like that of ports/155408 with
>> static linking to allow users to remove the runtime dependency for a
>> lot of software, at the cost of some added overhead from redundancies.
> Making this change now would benefit a lot of people, now.

Okay, but since I'm not in charge either, it will require (at least)
Gerald's consent.  And if you adopt the latter approach, it won't be
one size fits all: it may make sense to use static linking to the
support libraries for default packages, of which a comparatively few
are built with lang/gcc4*, but it will be less suitable for those who
routinely use lang/gcc4* for most if not all of their packages.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list