From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 19 18:04:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1A0EA3 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:04:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from smtp.rcn.com (smtp.rcn.com [69.168.97.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4003A48 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:04:00 +0000 (UTC) X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=L+6fspv8 c=1 sm=0 a=fEl05wXzeJCkBz9gs2itqQ==:17 a=XBbVgglCP-sA:10 a=ZrqZzSrQiogA:10 a=YNqtyO0l_hcA:10 a=LaogzpLLAAAA:8 a=CqN0Xa_Ne8wA:10 a=-hyCGDrDAAAA:8 a=q56oFxeYAAAA:8 a=N0DeWHDvTMtoE8W4e64A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Er2gK3W4G3kA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=RSu4zN4zdzqC0SbbftkA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=zvm9xgTIpEoA:10 a=8J37bO9ug7cNNtqf:21 a=fEl05wXzeJCkBz9gs2itqQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp02.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.mail=mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com; spf=neutral; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp02.rcn.cmh.synacor.com header.from=mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp02.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.user=anat; auth=pass (PLAIN) Received-SPF: neutral (smtp02.rcn.cmh.synacor.com: 209.6.63.29 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of aldan.algebra.com) Received: from [209.6.63.29] ([209.6.63.29:41212] helo=utka.zajac) by smtp.rcn.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.49 r(42060/42061)) with ESMTPA id 9F/FC-09236-E8EB3215; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:03:59 -0500 Message-ID: <5123BE8E.2080209@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:03:58 -0500 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? References: <511CED39.2010909@aldan.algebra.com> <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com> <5123ADEC.2040103@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Chris Rees , stable@freebsd.org, office@freebsd.org, Chris Rees X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:04:01 -0000 On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote: > 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. Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was a point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org: http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only a few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed). I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we may be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. And let the healing begin[TM]. I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the office@ maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the point of this topic... On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote: >> 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, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do deliberately misrepresent my original post? -mi