Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:23:07 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, office@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmok2HFaU4QQHBEaO0iL3HE4pLpA=iFa-xfqQtOk9JewioQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5123ADEC.2040103@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, The base compiler is supposed to compile base and bootstrap whatever else you need to compile other software. It's not supposed to be continuously updated to new, major versions. :-) 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. They could've made their code compile on older compilers.. they just haven't bothered. 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. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmok2HFaU4QQHBEaO0iL3HE4pLpA=iFa-xfqQtOk9JewioQ>