[CFH] FreeBSD 10 and ports

[Bernhard Fröhlich]

Am 11.06.2013 21:22 schrieb "Konstantin Belousov" <kostikbel at gmail.com>:
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:50:03PM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > As we all know FreeBSD 10 brings a new compiler along, and for that we
need to get ports on the right
> > track. I have done several exp-runs on the current src and we still
have a lot of fallouts. We
> > would like to ask you to have a look [1] at the failed ports and help
to fix them. We will start this week
> > an i386 exp-run to see how the status is.
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > - Martin on behalf of portmgr
> >
> > [1]http://pointyhat-west.isc.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-10-exp-latest/
>
> Didn't a sort of consensus when switching to clang for base was
> discussed, was that ports would start use a port-provided version of gcc
> ? The adoption of the ports gcc was stalled due to the unability to make
> exp-runs, AFAIK.
>
> What you are proposing is de-facto forking the whole open-source code
> base. This cannot work, and in fact steals the FreeBSD resources for
> something which has absolutely no relevance for FreeBSD project.
>
> Ports should not be forced to use clang, either a ports gcc work
> should be finished, or cc in HEAD switched back to gcc.  This is
> de-facto blocker for the 10.0.

Yes we are working on that and though it's still in an early phase we
already know that we have to switch the full toolchain - which is a lot of
work.
This project can be seen as a midterm goal but it's unsure yet if we can
finish it before 10.0 but we will find out pretty soon.

In the meantime bapt and a few others have managed to fix quite a few ports
and managed to build a high number of ports with clang 3.3 already. So it
does not look that unrealistic anymore.

There has been no decision yet what the right way to proceed is but fixing
stuff for clang has proven to be worth the effort because newer gcc seems
to hit quite similar problems.