svn commit: r568012 - head/net/tightvnc

[Piotr Kubaj]

I know what you mean and this will just make more work for people caring about ARM / PPC. I add USE_GCC=any simply because there ARE issues with clang, so removing USE_GCC=any to check whether something builds doesn't make any sense.

If there's any person who will remove USE_GCC=any and test for regressions on all architectures, that's ok for me.

On 21-03-17 14:41:19, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:54:42PM +0100, Piotr Kubaj wrote:
> > On 21-03-17 12:45:07, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:13:17PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > > > First step could probably be to make a patch for `any` mean `yes`,
> > > > build stuff and look at the size of the explosion from afar.
> > > 
> > > After a second thought, the first step could probably have USE_GCC=any
> > > do nothing and see what does not explode.
> > > 
> >
> > Don't do that, it will break the ports that specifically need GCC (like net/tightvnc).
> > 
> > The better way would be making it work like USE_GCC=yes.
> 
> What I said was start with having USE_GCC=any do nothing, to see what
> ports still work, so those can loose the USE_GCC, then for the rest,
> convert to from any to yes.
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Arnold


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20210317/7f0fb9e8/attachment.sig>