From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 11 13:57:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71478106564A; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:57:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daichi@freebsd.org) Received: from natial.ongs.co.jp (natial.ongs.co.jp [202.216.246.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4BC8FC08; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:57:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from parancell.ongs.co.jp (dullmdaler.ongs.co.jp [202.216.246.94]) by natial.ongs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 522D212543B; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:57:30 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:57:30 +0900 From: Daichi GOTO To: Gerald Pfeifer Message-Id: <20111211225730.bcf74864.daichi@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: References: <201112110906.pBB96u1e009117@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111211203003.45c70bc4.daichi@freebsd.org> <20111211212323.d224e8a3.daichi@freebsd.org> Organization: FreeBSD Project X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.2 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Gerald Pfeifer , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang Makefile ports/lang/gcc42 Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist ports/lang/gcc42/files java-patch-hier X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:57:31 -0000 >From some investigation, now I think I can do to build mozc in another way. Removed gcc42 ok ;) Thank you! On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:37:59 +0800 (CIT) Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Daichi GOTO wrote: > > I'm trying to use gcc46 (USE_GCC=4.4+) instead. Wait up a day... > > Cool, thank you. Looking at the condition in the port > .if (${OSVERSION} < 1000000 && ${OSVERSION} > 9000000) || ${OSVERSION} < 802503 > this really was a tight miss in terms of checking INDEX. > > Note, if for some reason gcc46 does not work you could try gcc44 by > issuing USE_GCC=4.4 (without the +). Though both that and the original > gcc42 would be struggling on FreeBSD 10.x, for example, without hacks. Roger :) > Thanks for looking into it, and sorry. This was supposed to be a > non-brainer (zero dependent ports according to the INDEX), or I would > not have done it at this point. > > Gerald -- Daichi GOTO