Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:32:23 -0500 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: "Alex Dupre" <ale@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Subject: Re: Why not use normal CONFLICTS in lang/gcc43 instead of custom? Message-ID: <op.uvmf0xir9aq2h7@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4A375DBA.4010305@FreeBSD.org> References: <op.uvgzawdm9aq2h7@localhost> <alpine.LSU.1.99.0906160709360.29901@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <4A375DBA.4010305@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:54:18 -0500, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> Using the full path will not work too well either with different
>> LOCALBASEs
>> though I guess one could check /usr/local, $PREFIX, and $LOCALBASE and
>> consider that good enough.
>
> I think ${LOCALBASE}/bin/gcc295 would be enough. As you say, gcc295 is
> dying, while ccache is actively used. It's quite annoying to remove such
> check from the Makefile, while I doubt anyone is still going to compile
> gcc43 with gcc295 installed in a non-standard location.
Yes, I agree about that ${LOCALBASE}. Either put full path or remove
gcc295 sound good to me.
Cheers,
Mezz
--
mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.uvmf0xir9aq2h7>