Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:57:23 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, NAKATA Maho <chat95@mac.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc40 Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <20050526205723.GA88546@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.62.0505262128470.25754@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <200505162031.j4GKVMOR038312@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050521.144236.74702484.chat95@mac.com> <Pine.BSF.4.62.0505212152420.33827@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20050523023831.GC62971@dragon.NUXI.org> <Pine.BSF.4.62.0505262128470.25754@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:30:14PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 22 May 2005, David O'Brien wrote: > >> However, I think we should see to use one of the regular ports in the > >> future instead of having a special port just for the purpose of building > >> OpenOffice.org. > > At the moment gcc-ooo has some needed patches that were rejected for GCC > > 3.4. So we have no choice - unless we add the patches to the gcc34 port. > > I investigated doing that, but I wasn't comfortable with the changes the > > patches make to add them to gcc34 for general use. > > Yes, in that case we shouldn't do that. However, I wonder whether it's > really necessary to keep gcc-ooo as a port of its own instead of making > it a child port of the main gcc34 port which carries additional patches? I thought about that, but ... > Alternatively, how about giving the gcc40 port a try? I see the value in having a GCC port that is exactly what the OpenOffice.org developer team uses. OOo is such a demanding application I didn't want to add any road blocks to the FreeBSD OOo port maintainer. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050526205723.GA88546>