Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

benchmarks/polygraph: Exclude SSL option on i386
ClosedPublic

Authored by salvadore on May 31 2022, 11:40 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Dec 11, 8:20 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Nov 21, 7:08 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 12 2024, 9:44 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 8 2024, 3:44 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 6 2024, 11:26 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 29 2024, 7:42 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 20 2024, 2:54 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 19 2024, 9:40 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

The port has USE_GCC=yes and SSL option breaks the build on i386 architecture with GCC 11, which is
soon to become the default GCC version.

PR: 264368
Reported by: exp-run (antoine)

Diff Detail

Repository
R11 FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

I was unsure about bumping PORTREVISION or not. I choosed not to do it because:

  • with the actual default version of GCC (10) the port fully supports SSL, even on i386;
  • @gerald: I guess when the GCC default version update will be committed you will bump PORTREVISION anyway, am I right?

I was unsure about bumping PORTREVISION or not. I choosed not to do it because:

  • with the actual default version of GCC (10) the port fully supports SSL, even on i386;

Yes, and we are changing that default by this patch and packages built thereafter will provide different features (by default). So bumping PORTREVISION appears appropriate.

  • @gerald: I guess when the GCC default version update will be committed you will bump PORTREVISION anyway, am I right?

In the past I have been doing it, and it's usually been quite involved and affected thousands of ports. With the update from GCC 9 to GCC 10 which linimon@ did, that bump did not take place and ... nothing happened. So for this time around I am actually wondering whether to skip that step again (though it might make sense to go for it).

gerald requested changes to this revision.Jun 2 2022, 11:31 AM

Approved with PORTREVISION bump added. (Technically that bump could be made conditional on i386, but that kind of conditional has proven to be a maintenance issue that's probably not worth the hassle, so I'd do it unconditionally.)

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Jun 2 2022, 11:31 AM
This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Revision.Jun 2 2022, 12:13 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.