From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 16 14:31:55 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE78106566C;
	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:31:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net)
Received: from eastrmmtao103.cox.net (eastrmmtao103.cox.net [68.230.240.9])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3C98FC0A;
	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:31:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net)
Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao103.cox.net
	(InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id
	<20090616143153.YTPB12338.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>;
	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:31:53 -0400
Received: from localhost ([68.103.37.153]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id 4eXt1c0063JFCbG02eXttu; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:31:54 -0400
X-VR-Score: -200.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=yncqinufF1QA:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8
	a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=hTjQREE7SrvhHKoQoRAA:9 a=MNGHOqcG2TYsP3Y9PlQA:7
	a=-wqbAJM1znAdc0ryrf5BoIUiZvQA:4 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:32:23 -0500
To: "Alex Dupre" <ale@freebsd.org>
From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <op.uvgzawdm9aq2h7@localhost>
	<alpine.LSU.1.99.0906160709360.29901@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
	<4A375DBA.4010305@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <op.uvmf0xir9aq2h7@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <4A375DBA.4010305@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.64 (Linux)
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Subject: Re: Why not use normal CONFLICTS in lang/gcc43 instead of custom?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:31:55 -0000

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