[MacPorts] #46921: root5 @5.34.25_0: update to 5.34.26

[MacPorts]

#46921: root5 @5.34.25_0: update to 5.34.26
-----------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  jonesc@…  |      Owner:  larryv@…
      Type:  update    |     Status:  assigned
  Priority:  Normal    |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports     |    Version:
Resolution:            |   Keywords:  haspatch maintainer
      Port:  root5     |
-----------------------+---------------------------------

Comment (by jonesc@…):

 Replying to [comment:5 mojca@…]:
 > Replying to [comment:4 jonesc@…]:
 > > What will happen to users who previously installed the default port
 (no variants).
 >
 > Read https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-
 dev/2015-February/029766.html
 >
 > > Will they be automatically migrated to the new default if we where to
 change to gcc49?
 >
 > If you keep support for `gcc48` then no (users will be stuck at
 `gcc48`). Or at least not until Clemens' proposal gets implemented. If you
 remove the variant for `gcc48`, then users will be automatically upgraded
 to the new variant.

 I certainly have no plans at this point to *remove* gcc variants.

 >
 > > I don't want to make the change and suddenly have users asking why
 they are no longer using the binary installs, and being forced to building
 from source, just because what was default variants is no longer the case.
 >
 > But then you can be stuck to this version for the next 30 years.

 As I said, I acknowledge the move will have to happen sometime. The
 question for me is if there is a need to move regularly, keeping up with
 the latest stable gcc, or if its OK to stick to one for a while and then
 jump a few in one go. At this time I am not sure I see the pressed need to
 move from 4.8 to 4.9.

 > > Note that root only uses gcc for an F77 compiler, so on that basis it
 makes no difference what so ever which is used. I maintain the variants
 just to allow users who do build from source, for whatever reason, the
 ability to choose incase they have a preference (for instance maybe they
 already have one gcc installed, and do not wish to get a different one).
 >
 > I know. Today I wanted to get rid of `gcc48` and noticed that `root5/6`
 was the only port preventing me to do that. (I actually noticed when
 upgrading a port with `+gcc48` that switch to `gcc49` since my last
 upgrade.)

 Nothing is stopping you using gcc49 yourself ;) Just uninstall them and
 then reinstall with this variant active.

 As long as there is a list of gcc alternatives, there will always be some
 people who for whatever reason wish to use one which isn't the default.
 There can only be one default...

 >
 > > I am not against changing the default, eventually it will have to be
 done, but only if it can be done transparently to users.
 >
 > I wanted to ask how exactly you did the transition to `gcc48`, but it
 seems that you only introduced the variant to be the default with r110912.
 (You can always remove the variant `gcc48` or hope that one day someone
 will implement the necessary changes in the core to allow smoother
 transitions.)

 Correct, there have been to my knowledge no previous gcc transitions so
 the question has not arisen before.

 So, to cut to the chase, at this point I see no real need to move to
 gcc49. I would rather stick with gcc48 as the default, and monitor the
 developments that might allow the transition to be done at a later stage
 in a painless transparent manner for users, which at this point it would
 not be.


 Chris

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/46921#comment:6>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X