From owner-freebsd-office@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 19 19:32:57 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: office@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A051065670; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:32:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C825914DDE8; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:32:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <500860E8.5040403@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:32:56 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120624 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dimitry Andric References: <20486.55903.34769.952614@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <500729B3.1050208@FreeBSD.org> <20487.20506.88401.623249@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20488.23232.578561.75939@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <50085D4C.60901@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <50085D4C.60901@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Robert Huff , office@freebsd.org, Kevin Oberman Subject: Re: libreoffice fails to build X-BeenThere: freebsd-office@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Office applications on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:32:57 -0000 On 07/19/2012 12:17, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-07-19 21:06, Robert Huff wrote: > ... >> Let me be clear: >> There is at least one person out there who has successfully >> built LibreOffice 3.5.5 using (system) clang 3.2? > > The version of clang in base is 3.1. I have successfully compiled > LibreOffice with it, and it even seemed to run OK, though I didn't test > it very thoroughly. There were several other posters which confirmed > the same. ... including me. > Apparently in r301038, jkim updated the libreoffice port to use the > lang/clang-devel port instead, which is built from a very recent 3.2 > snapshot. I have no idea if LO compiles successfully with that. Maybe > you found a problem with the clang-devel port. :) I'm currently building on 8-stable with clang-devel, so we'll see how that goes. ... and while we're on that topic, IMO it would have been a *lot* better for jkim to have coordinated with brooks to get lang/clang updated to the same level as clang in HEAD (i.e., including the fix for the bug that affects LO) prior to releasing the update for 3.5.5. As it stands right now, this is the sequence for a user on 8-stable: 1. install lang/clang (+ llvm, in all clang steps below) 2. build/install LO 3.5.2 3. uninstall lang/clang 4. install lang/clang-devel 5. build/install LO 3.5.5 ... then assuming lang/clang is fixed down the road ... 6. uninstall lang/clang-devel 7. install lang/clang 8. build/install LO 3.5.N This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people look at the way the ports tree is managed and shake their head in disbelief. Even if lang/clang needed to be upgraded at every new LO release (as it would have this time) tools like portmaster can handle that upgrade "in line" without any intervention from the user. The procedure above requires at least 2 manual steps that cannot be automated. Doug -- Change is hard.