On 19.02.2013 13:19, Ian Lepore wrote:
All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a
mis-characterization to you, then I apologize.
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 -- 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...
Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the base
compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and documented
somewhere else?
Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.
Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in mind?
Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in
supporting
LibreOffice's own Native_Build page
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Native_Build> makes no mention
of a required compiler version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a
required feature, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with
LibreOffice could've been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the
toolchain, that are 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 that
little can be done about it.
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? Not just old -- and thus unable to
process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy -- processing those
features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our errata
<http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.1R/errata.html> about it...
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...
-mi
_______________________________________________
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"
