Like it! Maybe share this with gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org before adding it here to see what feedback the GCC folks may have (but that's just a suggestion, not required).

fluffy@ approved this on behalf of desktop in https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=254322#c3 .

Thank you for thinking of our users impacted negatively, Lorenzo.

In D25296#809250, @salvadore wrote:

I have not received any reply to my mail and more than a month has passed. I abandon the revision.

In D35416#803163, @salvadore wrote:

I confirm that %%SQLITE%% is still needed and I have put it back.

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.)

In D35361#801714, @salvadore wrote:

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;

Thank you for the review, @thierry!

Lorenzo, I just realized this one's still open. What next steps would you like to take?

In D35321#800838, @bcran wrote:

I'll try and contact someone on IRC or Slack if there's a next time. Not being a ports committer I can't commit fixes directly.

Hi Rebecca, changes like this don't need review. It's best to commit them as quickly as possible since otherwise make index is broken.

And I think spending much time on ports related to HPC and scientific computing specifically to get them to work on i386 is mostly wasted time.

Hi Rebecca, intuitively this look good and you being our resident expert - do you want to go ahead and commit this?

I trust that you tested the LICENSE_DISTFILES magic. :-)

Thank you - please note the minor comment I made regarding full stops.

mat@ wrote:

We don't have legal knowledge sufficient to determine if the file actually contains a license named FOO

"consistently" -> "consistent" in the commit message.

Some minor suggestions for the actual text (and as you mentioned out of band you'll adjust the date bit).

In D35112#796718, @carlavilla wrote:

Approved from docs

In the commit message you probably want to mention the LICENSE_FILE change, and adding some Why? for the compiler:c++17-lang addition probably would be useful.

Thanks. And, yes, differentiating between GPL 2 and GPL 2 or later is the right thing to do.

Yes, I meant to note approval earlier, Lorenzo.

Regarding storing the actual license file: If we are looking at a vanilla, 100% standard license file (for GPLv2 say) then I strongly recommend to not ship yet another copy and just notice the license as such.

In D35031#795789, @salvadore wrote:

Also, what is the general rule here? Should I avoid putting development dependencies in BUILD_DEPENDS in general? Should I avoid it only when something is wrong about them?

Thank you, Salvadore!

Wow, from 3.6.1 to 6.0.3? That port really was abandoned.

In D35026#793792, @salvadore wrote:

trying to work with the poudriere maintainers to make it support longer filenames, but I have no idea if the fix is possible and/or easy.
Maybe the best idea is to combine solutions: trying to work with poudriere maintainers to make it support longer filenames

In D34942#793912, @carlavilla wrote:

Perfect! In that case. Approved from docs :)

Thanks for putting this together! Just some text suggestions/feedback.

Thanks for the review, danfe@!

Looks good (aka approved) modulo the one comment about dynamic libraries.

In D35015#793410, @salvadore wrote:

Thanks, I'll commit it as soon as I get mentor approval too.

Approved wearing my mentor hat - for the actual commit deferring to the docs pros. :-)

Oh, sorry. I though you actually are a ports committer and hence only briefly provided feedback.

In D33391#754991, @bcran wrote:

Is it valid to reset PORTEPOCH to 1 when updating the PORTVERSION?