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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
