From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 27 04:19:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9E516A41C; Fri, 27 May 2005 04:19:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chat95@mac.com) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B792143D48; Fri, 27 May 2005 04:19:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chat95@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout01/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id j4R4JSLt023584; Thu, 26 May 2005 21:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([133.11.172.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin07/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id j4R4JOHM005429; Thu, 26 May 2005 21:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:19:18 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20050527.131918.122625090.chat95@mac.com> To: gerald@pfeifer.com From: NAKATA Maho In-Reply-To: References: <20050523023831.GC62971@dragon.NUXI.org> Organization: private X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc40 Makefile distinfo pkg-plist X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 04:19:32 -0000 In Message-ID: 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? > > Alternatively, how about giving the gcc40 port a try? Hm, recently gcc40 has been supported by Caolan, but I'm sure after next few milestones we must raise some gcc40 issues. BTW: I had been porting OOo to Mac OS X, and I used Xcode 1.5, gcc-3.3. gcc-3.3 has a bug in parser, and Hamburg team do not use gcc-3.3, so we raised many issues, and integration can take time (1-2 weeks). -- NAKATA, Maho (maho@FreeBSD.org)