Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:07:28 +0200 From: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <51247630.3090307@digsys.bg> In-Reply-To: <5123CA4C.90703@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> <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <5123CA4C.90703@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19.02.13 20:54, Mikhail T. wrote: > My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the > office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- > comments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with > anyone, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze > the failures... I don't think, such "going with the flow" is > responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of building a special > compiler just for the office will return... Neither of these "best open source office suites" is supposed to be built from source, by the "normal" user. As already mentioned, normal users are guided to use the pre-compiled binaries. The reasons for this are many and different. Only one of the reasons is that those ports are rather complex and let's not forget it - buggy. They more or less require special build environments, which are easier provided, as you guessed it, by an purposely configured compiler. Since the ports themselves are huge, compiling an relatively small compiler for the purpose to build the rest is ok. Count it as 'bootstrap' process. I for one, don't buy your argument that the makefile lacks enough "evidence" of why certain choices were made - it is an file with instructions for the computer, after all. Humans discuss these things at other places. > > Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the > compilers shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating > system's most recent stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? As already mentioned, the compilers in the base exist in order to compile FreeBSD and bootstrap other compilers. For that purpose, even the ancient gcc does the job. It even does the job for many, many ports as well. Nobody has ever made the promise that the base cc will compile any source code thrown at it. Because it is buggy and because newer versions have different license, that doesn't fit well with FreeBSD, gcc is being phased out from FreeBSD and replaced by llvm/clang. Still a work in progress and might not be complete for 10.0. > On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> .. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the >> compiler that is known to work with it, and move on. > > Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based > system, don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS > in the port is large, and a lot of people are likely to build their > own. Not because they like it, but because they want a PostgreSQL > driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) interface or... > This is why it exists as source code and FreeBSD port. I myself build all software from source, whatever it takes. And if it requires that I have dozen of special-purpose gcc versions built in the process, I don't care. For people with less resources and patience, there is the precompiled binary package. An RPM-like technology. Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51247630.3090307>