[MacPorts] #46921: root5 @5.34.25_0: update to 5.34.26
noreply at macports.org
Mon Feb 23 14:18:35 PST 2015
#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 mojca@…):
Replying to [comment:4 jonesc@…]:
> What will happen to users who previously installed the default port (no
> 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
> 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.
I admit that I hate this, but I'm actually facing this problem all the
time. With `clang` in particular (am I really the only one?) which
constantly keeps changing the default variants. I run "sudo port upgrade
outdated" and then I already developed a built-in red light / reflex to
stop the upgrade whenever I see
---> Extracting foo
---> Configuring foo
(even if the port should actually build from source). Then I first try to
run something like "`sudo port install foo`" just to make sure that I'm
not getting the from-source build just because of outdated variants.
> 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
> 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
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/46921#comment:5>
Ports system for OS X
More information about the macports-tickets