FWIW I am OK with jca's diff and intend to commit it on Monday if nothing else is worked out beforehand.
On 2018/12/01 10:11, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06 2018, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > > On 2018/11/06 11:11, John Gould wrote: > > >> Hello, I am trying to build parts of xfce4 and some kde4 applications on > > >> 6.4 current on sparc64. > > >> Although these applications worked or were available from packages on > > >> 6.3 I > > >> am having no > > >> luck on 6.4. I have several sparc machines here all doing nothing! Can > > >> someone please help me with this or am I wasting my time? I've included a > > >> dmesg below and some of the output of a recent build. > > >> > > >> Kind regards John > > >> > > >> /usr/ports/pobj/llvm-6.0.1/llvm-6.0.1.src/tools/lldb/include/lldb/Host/Editline.h:49:19: > > >> fatal error: codecvt: No such file or directory > > >> > > >> #include <codecvt> > > >> > > >> ^ > > > > > > This is exactly the reason why these are not available in packages on > > > 6.4. The patch below for devel/llvm should get things unblocked though I > > > don't know if it will help get you as far as the ports you're really > > > interested in. > > > > Thanks. Diff refreshed for -current, successfully tested on sparc64 > > (and amd64). > > > > IMO this has been broken since too long already. I'd like us to fix > > what we can now instead of waiting for a switch to gcc 6 in the upcoming > > weeks/months/releases. Stuart, if you want to commit this, ok jca@ > > Brad, you're still listed as the maintainer of devel/llvm, and you proxy > commits to it via sthen@ and ajacoutot@, so i understand that you still > work on it. devel/llvm has been broken on sparc64 (and maybe macppc, > we'll see) since you rushed the 'enable lldb' bits before 6.4, which > resulted in the low amount of sparc64 release packages for 6.4, and that > affects actual users of the platform. > > I've loudly complained about it, sthen@ proposed a variation of the diff > below that i've successfully tested in one of the past bulks, and i > think you know it. > > Now, i know that "switching to gcc6" also fixes it, but it requires more > work before being a short-time goal, so to unblock the situation, will > you step up and give your opinion on jca@'s diff so that we can move > forward ? > > I'm starting a sparc64 bulk without any diff. As a result, it wont have > llvm & any of the packages depending on it, which i think is better: > If llvm is available, all c++ ports end up depending on gcc (for > libstdc++) *and* llvm because many (340-so) ports have > COMPILER=base-clang ports-clang ports-gcc which is deeply wrong, but > this has to be fixed separately from the lldb issue. For which as > MAINTAINER, you have to step up. > > Thanks. > > Landry >
