Massive PORTS_REVISION bump after making gcc-9.1 default
Gerald Pfeifer
gerald at pfeifer.com
Sun Jul 28 09:14:34 UTC 2019
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all
> were the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The
> problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports
> were rebuilt with the exact same compiler it was built with before the
> rebuild
This feels a bit like a deja vu? Wasn't there a similar issue last
year, with the update from GCC 7 to GCC 8 (or an earlier one)?
And wasn't one finding back then that there was a bug in the tool
you used to update/build your ports tree?
I just double checked, and
r507371 | gerald | 2019-07-26 20:35:21 +0000 (Fr., 26 Juli 2019) | 7 lines
Update the default version of GCC as pulled in via USE_GCC=yes and a
myriad of other ways from GCC 8 (8.3 right now) to GCC 9 (9.1 right now).
landed in the tree directly before the PORT_REVISION bump you are
referring to, so lang/gcc9 *should* have been installed first and
then used to rebuild all those bumped ports.
> Should an install of gcc9 preceded all updates?
Yes.
> Perhaps a note in UPDATING? I certainly looked there before I started
> when I saw 226 ports in the list.
UPDATING is described as
This file documents some of the problems you may encounter when
upgrading your ports. We try our best to minimize these disruptions,
but sometimes they are unavoidable.
and the update of the default version of GCC in the ports tree should
not be, nor cause, problems worth documenting there. For example, most
of the updates to Firefox are not mentioned there, either.
> Should I rebuild the ports that were rebuilt prior to the installation
> of gcc-9.1?
If you want to have a consistent system, and be in line with what the
majority of users will have, then yes, I'd recommend that.
Gerald
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list