Re: wrappers and gcc -isystem

[Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost>]

* On 2016-02-18 at 12:34 GMT, Greg Troxel wrote:

> Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes:
> 
> >> [1] What's keeping this, anyway?
> >
> > I don't know but I'd like to see it happen 12 months ago.  The
> > difference in reduced build/system time is astonishing and I've used
> > it for all my builds for a long time now.
> 
> Perhaps you could start a new thread with the accumulated evidence that
> enabling cwrappers does no harm, in terms of missing packages in bulk
> builds, and packages that can't be build normally, on various platforms.
> Because I haven't seen a "here is the data; I think we're over the bar",
> I have been under the impression that we hadn't yet arrived at time to
> flip the default.

This really needs to be done on NetBSD, as the only platform which can
currently build almost all of pkgsrc.  I don't have any NetBSD bulk
build infrastructure, so this will need to come from someone else.

However, for the bulk builds I perform on SmartOS, OSX and Linux, I'm
not aware of any regressions caused by moving to cwrappers, just
significantly faster builds.

> Also, it seems one probably has to re-bootstrap.  I am unclear on what
> the effect on NetBSD itself is and how that would happen, in terms of
> changing the default and getting existing systems moved over.

This isn't the case.  Just add USE_CWRAPPERS=yes to mk.conf and you're
good to go.

I did add a '--cwrappers' argument to the bootstrap script to make it
easier to test, perhaps that is causing the confusion.  In hindsight I
probably shouldn't have added it.

-- 
Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -  www.joyent.com