Details
- Reviewers
joerg - Commits
- R11:d2767ba1088e: Update to GCC 10.2.0
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R11 FreeBSD ports repository
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
The patch to add the --without-zstd option is rejected here (SVN r568912). The reason is the patch assumes the individual configure options are each on a single individual line in the Makefile, yet everything except --with-isl used to be on a just one line before.
My version of pkg-static does not seem to replace %%VERSION%%:
pkg-static: Unable to access file /usr/ports/devel/avr-gcc/work/stage/usr/local/lib/gcc/avr/%%VERSION%%/plugin/include/wide-int-print.h:No such file or directory
and so on.
After reading
https://docs.freebsd.org/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/plist.html
it seems, the following addition to Makefile does the trick:
VERSION= ${PORTVERSION}
PLIST_SUB= VERSION=${VERSION}However, I also notice a slight increase in the resulting binary size:
$ avr-size *elf build-gcc9/*elf text data bss dec hex filename 14018 938 83 15039 3abf cg3000.elf 13900 938 83 14921 3a49 build-gcc9/cg3000.elf
Not representative, just running both compiler versions on my current AVR project.
Are there any comments about the patches that don't work straight out of the box for me?
Do you want me to commit it including my modifications?
I can test the current proposed version if it would be helpful but I'm not sure what patches you're referring to.
This is how portfmt formats makefiles. It seems to be more and more popular and is documented in the porter's handbook.
BTW, your Subversion checkout seems to be out-dated. The Git repository contains a couple additional commits now: https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/log/devel/avr-gcc/Makefile
Hmmm, I don't know why you experience this behavior. I've tested this patch many times both in poudriere and by building the port manually and running qa targets manually. Perhaps I missed something..
This is how portfmt formats makefiles. It seems to be more and more popular and is documented in the porter's handbook.
I don't mind using that kind of formatting – but it's not the way the *current* port is formatted, thus your patch failed.
BTW, your Subversion checkout seems to be out-dated.
I ran a "svn update" before – no, it's not.
The Git repository contains a couple additional commits now: https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/log/devel/avr-gcc/Makefile
Yes, the Git repo, but not the SVN one.
So question is, what's the definitive ports tree these days?
(It looks like I started to post a comment but never actually submitted... I also cannot apply the patch.)
In my case I have two ports trees, one is a shallow checkout created by poudriere:
zinc 201 % git remote -v
origin https://git.FreeBSD.org/ports.git (fetch)
origin https://git.FreeBSD.org/ports.git (push)
zinc 202 % git log --max-count 1 --pretty=fuller | egrep ^CommitDate
CommitDate: Wed May 5 09:46:40 2021 -0700
And the other is the one I use to commit changes:
zinc 203 % git remote -v
origin ssh://git@gitrepo.freebsd.org/ports.git (fetch)
origin git@gitrepo.freebsd.org:ports.git (push)
zinc 204 % git log --max-count 1 --pretty=fuller | egrep ^CommitDate
CommitDate: Wed May 5 11:39:35 2021 +0800
Both have the same version of devel/avr-gcc. If I download a diff using the "Download Raw Diff" link above the patch fails.
I had a problem in the past where I accidentally interrupted a git update and from then on some parts of the tree would never update. In the end I trashed and recreated the tree.
BTW, I believe it's more common for the diff to be relative to /usr/ports
The definitive repo is the Git one. The ports tree in Subversion is no longer updated. The last update to the Subversion head branch was 5 weeks ago: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/
Hmmm, the diff applies cleanly for me:
git checkout main fetch -o /tmp/p "https://reviews.freebsd.org/D30022/diff" patch < /tmp/p
Could you paste the error messages you get when the patch fails to apply? Maybe we can figure out what's the reason of the failure.
Cheers, thanks a lot for taking time to review this revision :)
zinc 295 # pwd
/usr/ports/devel/avr-gcc
zinc 296 # git status .
On branch main
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/main'.nothing to commit, working tree clean
zinc 298 # fetch -o /tmp/p https://reviews.freebsd.org/D30022/diff
fetch: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D30022/diff: size of remote file is not known
/tmp/p 84 kB 609 kBps 00s
zinc 299 # patch < /tmp/p
Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me...The text leading up to this was:
Index: devel/avr-gcc/Makefile =================================================================== --- devel/avr-gcc/Makefile +++ devel/avr-gcc/Makefile
Patching file Makefile using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 33.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 72.
Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...The text leading up to this was:
Index: devel/avr-gcc/distinfo =================================================================== --- devel/avr-gcc/distinfo +++ devel/avr-gcc/distinfo
Patching file distinfo using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1.
Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...The text leading up to this was:
Index: devel/avr-gcc/pkg-plist =================================================================== --- devel/avr-gcc/pkg-plist +++ devel/avr-gcc/pkg-plist
Patching file pkg-plist using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 2.
done
I also uploaded a copy of Makefile.orig
The definitive repo is the Git one.
OK, I missed that transition (just read it in my mail backlog).
In that case, I'll first update my ports tree working copy. (Maybe the missing %%VERSION%% replacement gets also resolved by that?)
In that case, I'll first update my ports tree working copy. (Maybe the missing %%VERSION%% replacement gets also resolved by that?)
Tree updated, and yes, %%VERSION%% now also works as expected.
So I'm fine with your original patch then.
Btw., if you're doing some blanket-permission updates to many ports (option re-arranging), as a port maintainer I would have appreciated to get a "head's up" mail about it.