2026-04-20T11:04:33+0200 Theo Buehler <tb@theobuehler.org>:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 08:15:28AM +0000, Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote:
> > 2026-04-17T08:12:01+0200 Rafael Sadowski <rafael@sizeofvoid.org>:
> > > On Sat Apr 04, 2026 at 02:40:43PM +0000, Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote:
> > > > Please find attached a port for devel/scnlib.
> > > > 
> > > > COMMENT:
> > > > scanf for modern C++
> > > > 
> > > > DESCR:
> > > > scnlib is a modern C++ library for replacing scanf and std::istream.
> > > > This library attempts to move us ever so much closer to replacing
> > > > iostreams and C stdio altogether. It's faster than iostream, and
> > > > type-safe, unlike scanf. Think {fmt} or C++20 std::format, but in the
> > > > other direction.
> > > > 
> > > > This port is needed to update graphics/vtk to version 9.6.0. Most tests
> > > > are passing (96% tests passed, 1 tests failed out of 25). I've
> > > > reported[1] the set of tests that failed upstream.
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://github.com/eliaskosunen/scnlib/issues/155
> > > > 
> > > > Feedback? OKs? Thank you.
> > > 
> > > OK (I'm in favour of post 7.9!) but ...
> > 
> > Hi rsadowski. Thanks for reviewing these ports and sorry for the late
> > reply. Attached a tarball of the port.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > +COMPILER =		base-clang ports-gcc
> > > 
> > > why COMPILER?
> > 
> > IIRC, to override the default of 'base-clang base-gcc', as I believe
> > base-gcc is never used for cmake ports, right?
> 
> I don't know if that's true in general but this particular port fails
> to configure with the compiler line removed (see further down):
> 
> -- Compiler frontend not gcc or clang -- build failure tests don't check the compiler output
> -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
> 
> In general, essentially everything c++ wants to be compiled with
> ports-gcc on base-gcc architectures, unless it's on the path to
> lang/gcc/15.
> 
> So please add the compiler line back before import. The port then builds
> on sparc64 and only fails one test, which I assume is the same failure
> as the one you had.

Will do, thanks. Yes it's the same test.