Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:19:12 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, office@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <5123BE8E.2080209@aldan.algebra.com> References: <511CED39.2010909@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo83-a7yqkFhgMinGiookjvgtFuTVeGQobOepuHDCeH_wsog@mail.gmail.com> <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo83-FoLrZGgkDZjjQ-jb-fcZNS3isn-F=zbd9pVkkmXQZUQ@mail.gmail.com> <5123ADEC.2040103@aldan.algebra.com> <CAJ-Vmok2HFaU4QQHBEaO0iL3HE4pLpA=iFa-xfqQtOk9JewioQ@mail.gmail.com> <5123BE8E.2080209@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:03 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote: > On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks > > things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers. > Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was a > point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org: > > http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo > > That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only a > few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed). > > I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we may > be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. And > let the healing begin[TM]. > > I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- > finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the office@ > maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the > requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the > point of this topic... > > On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote: > >> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc > >> >4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we_have_ that. > > It has been. The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc > > 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically > > taking steps to make it not-work. > Ian, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not > work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I > explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to > use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do > deliberately misrepresent my original post? > > -mi Comments such as "compiler people are too cool..." as well as things such as > Upstream gcc? They may not be very interested, indeed, but it is > FreeBSD, that > delivered this compiler to me -- in the most recent stable version of > the OS. > and > > But I agree, that it is insane, that the base compiler can not compile > one of > the most popular open-source application-suits... All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a mis-characterization to you, then I apologize. Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base. Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in supporting a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions. The reasonable solution is to use a newer compiler to compile newer ports, and put ongoing maintenance efforts into solidifying the replacement compiler rather than propping up the buggy old one. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1361297952.1164.83.camel>