Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:35:18 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com>, office@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <1361295318.1164.70.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmok2HFaU4QQHBEaO0iL3HE4pLpA=iFa-xfqQtOk9JewioQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <511CED39.2010909@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo83-a7yqkFhgMinGiookjvgtFuTVeGQobOepuHDCeH_wsog@mail.gmail.com> <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo83-FoLrZGgkDZjjQ-jb-fcZNS3isn-F=zbd9pVkkmXQZUQ@mail.gmail.com> <5123ADEC.2040103@aldan.algebra.com> <CAJ-Vmok2HFaU4QQHBEaO0iL3HE4pLpA=iFa-xfqQtOk9JewioQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 09:23 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > The base compiler is supposed to compile base and bootstrap whatever > else you need to compile other software. > > It's not supposed to be continuously updated to new, major versions. :-) > > I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks > things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers. > They could've made their code compile on older compilers.. they just > haven't bothered. > > In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc > 4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_ that. It has been. The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically taking steps to make it not-work. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1361295318.1164.70.camel>