root5 @5.34.25_0: update to 5.34.26

[cjones051073 (Chris Jones)]

Just a minor version update.

[larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)]

Thanks.

[mojca (Mojca Miklavec)]

While looking into this: what about switching the default gcc version to 4.9 (which is also relevant for root6, but it could be switched at version update)?

[larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)]

If Chris is okay with it?

[cjones051073 (Chris Jones)]

What will happen to users who previously installed the default port (no variants). Will they be automatically migrated to the new default if we where to change to gcc49 ? 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.

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 am not against changing the default, eventually it will have to be done, but only if it can be done transparently to users.

Chris

[mojca (Mojca Miklavec)]

Replying to jonesc@…:

What will happen to users who previously installed the default port (no variants).

Read ​https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2015-February/029766.html

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 new variant.

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 I run "sudo port upgrade outdated" and then I already developed a built-in red light / reflex to stop the upgrade whenever I see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 upgrade.)

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 transitions.)

[cjones051073 (Chris Jones)]

Replying to mojca@…:

Replying to jonesc@…:

What will happen to users who previously installed the default port (no variants).

Read ​https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2015-February/029766.html

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 new variant.

I certainly have no plans at this point to *remove* gcc variants.

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.

As I said, I acknowledge the move will have to happen sometime. The question for me is if there is a need to move regularly, keeping up with the latest stable gcc, or if its OK to stick to one for a while and then jump a few in one go. At this time I am not sure I see the pressing need to move from 4.8 to 4.9.

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 upgrade.)

Nothing is stopping you using gcc49 yourself ;) Just uninstall them and then reinstall with this variant active.

As long as there is a list of gcc alternatives, there will always be some people who for whatever reason wish to use one which isn't the default. There can only be one default...

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 transitions.)

Correct, there have been to my knowledge no previous gcc transitions so the question has not arisen before.

So, to cut to the chase, at this point I see no real need to move to gcc49. I would rather stick with gcc48 as the default, and monitor the developments that might allow the transition to be done at a later stage in a painless transparent manner for users, which at this point it would not be.

Chris

[larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)]

r133287

Default variant selection is not within the scope of this ticket, so feel free to open a new one or start a mailing list discussion.

[mojca (Mojca Miklavec)]

Replying to larryv@…:

Default variant selection is not within the scope of this ticket, so feel free to open a new one or start a mailing list discussion.

Sure. I just pointed it out, but I fully agree that changing the defaults is currently a bit painful and there is no need for a rush at this very moment. Actually I wasn't aware that ROOT never had those variants before gcc48 became the default. Clemens just opened a new ticket: #46956.