Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:13:44 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "office@freebsd.org" <office@freebsd.org>, stable@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <CADLo838iaftzZx3YEtM9=vhtR__SxJ=HfOEtt8-yG=X0=%2B=uNg@mail.gmail.com> 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
Somehow attribution has been screwed here-- I will perhaps blame the appalling Android Gmail app that I used to reply to an earlier message. On 19 February 2013 18:54, Mikhail T. <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: <snip> > These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after= I broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box,= the office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- c= omments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyon= e, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failure= s... 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 wi= ll return... I'm sorry that you feel that the maintainers of Libreoffice have taken an easy route; you can certainly show them how easy it is to do by providing some patches/fixes, or working with upstream. I don't see how anyone on freebsd-stable@ will either be interested or knowledgeable in Libreoffice internals. > Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the b= ase compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and docum= ented somewhere else? > > Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base. > > Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in min= d? GPLv3. >> Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interes= t in supporting >> LibreOffice's own Native_Build page makes no mention of a required compi= ler version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a required feat= ure, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with LibreOffice cou= ld've been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the toolchain, that a= re at fault... > >> a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions= . > > So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and t= hat little can be done about it. That is why we're replacing it with LLVM/Clang. > Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers s= hipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recen= t stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and t= hus unable to process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy --= processing those features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our e= rrata about it... It is no secret that our base compiler is old. What do you think happens in newer versions, if not added features and bugfixes? > 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 t= hey like it, but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) i= nterface or... Irrelevant. You choosing to compile with a different compiler adds no value and can't be compared with a different interface. Please fix it yourself, or talk to upstream. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838iaftzZx3YEtM9=vhtR__SxJ=HfOEtt8-yG=X0=%2B=uNg>