[MacPorts] #33890: base: add default compiler variants
#33890: base: add default compiler variants -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: sean.michael.farley@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.0.4 Keywords: | Port: -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- This patch expands upon #33821 to also add default compiler variants (gcc44, gcc45, gcc46, gcc47, clang, llvm, and system_gcc). Alternatively, this could instead be a PortGroup, i.e. "PortGroup multiple_compilers 1.0" -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33890> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS
#33890: base: add default compiler variants -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: sean.michael.farley@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.0.4 Keywords: | Port: -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment(by ryandesign@…): Why would we want compiler variants on all ports? How do you know that all ports can be built with all compilers? We don't really want the support burden of increasing the possible user configurations in this manner. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33890#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS
#33890: base: add default compiler variants -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: sean.michael.farley@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.0.4 Keywords: | Port: -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment(by sean.michael.farley@…): Replying to [comment:1 ryandesign@…]:
Why would we want compiler variants on all ports?
How do you know that all ports can be built with all compilers?
We don't really want the support burden of increasing the possible user configurations in this manner.
That's fair and a good point. Could you then review my patch to have a new port group? Thanks! -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33890#comment:2> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS
#33890: base: add default compiler variants -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: sean.michael.farley@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.0.4 Keywords: | Port: -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment(by sean.michael.farley@…): Any review for the new portgroup in this patch yet? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33890#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS
#33890: base: add default compiler variants -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: sean.michael.farley@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.0.4 Keywords: | Port: -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment(by mmoll@…): This seems like a really good idea to me. There so many ports with essentially the same code for specifying compilers (usually when a Fortran compiler is needed). There are simple copy-paste errors or missing "conflicts" between options that can be avoided if there is one central place for this. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33890#comment:6> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS
participants (1)
-
MacPorts