From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 27 21:33:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58FDB37B401 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 21:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86BE43F75 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 21:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with ESMTP id <20030528043311001003tra5e>; Wed, 28 May 2003 04:33:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA31627; Tue, 27 May 2003 21:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:33:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030527.211312.108985092.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: brucem@cruzio.com Subject: Re: gcc problem/openoffice failure X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 04:33:13 -0000 On Tue, 27 May 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200305280035.h4S0Z8000399@cruzio.com> > "Bruce R. Montague" writes: > : > : Julian Elischer wrote: > : > : > ... I have not been able to compile the openoffice port ... > : > : > ... Has anyone else seen this? > : > : > : I tried to build openoffice on a "clean" -current system, > : built from a recent cvsup, and it failed to compile... This > : was perhaps a week and a half ago, kept meaning to get back > : and look at it, but time seems to have got the best of me. > > I wouldn't attempt something this complex without portupgrade... > > Warner this WAS under port-upgrade.. run 3 times sequentially of course now that I've said this, it may have decided to go past the spot where it failed last time.