From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 19 19:14:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DD71DE; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:14:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ia0-x234.google.com (ia-in-x0234.1e100.net [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::234]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBA5A0; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f27so6326615iae.39 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:14:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uRJQg4COwrhsyChX4jWc145XSB4EaMHSGa28CYt5G4o=; b=Jlcq4GvWVQBSLAlk6JpIaThLcFJ4tZxsgV827R+DK1zn1dG/UuiFlRj3iZW6naxMGH GDxmQHMt4DWgCpLLCCu/aDNDQsGaSbv8EUpgVFJ9xb6QUSM216ky5p03kBc/H9iBFn6C 29/xVQ7hlpvdC7tUjiv9Qu7hwQ2317zRbVG/5jbjMBEFpesZuQs4R3uRjiRf7a62B2fq 8klqT9Myq9/k59hdcx+Lw9iJm4mgxw0j+r8bFh/LCbcljoXYXWBxKSN6NeUp6KHHGVgE 7tze49xJ5e8zx0xb3wGghyYt+tRBuJiUY3udMa4ialFXIRQ19ePdmdoRm02wC31lNEru 3mVw== X-Received: by 10.50.178.10 with SMTP id cu10mr10041921igc.75.1361301255047; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:14:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.63.12 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:13:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5123CA4C.90703@aldan.algebra.com> References: <511CED39.2010909@aldan.algebra.com> <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com> <5123ADEC.2040103@aldan.algebra.com> <5123BE8E.2080209@aldan.algebra.com> <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <5123CA4C.90703@aldan.algebra.com> From: Chris Rees Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:13:44 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? To: "Mikhail T." Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Adrian Chadd , "office@freebsd.org" , stable@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore 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 19:14:15 -0000 Somehow attribution has been screwed here-- I will perhaps blame the appalling Android Gmail app that I used to reply to an earlier message. On 19 February 2013 18:54, Mikhail T. wrote: > These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after= I broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box,= the office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- c= omments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyon= e, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failure= s... I don't think, such "going with the flow" is responsible and am afraid= , the inglorious days of building a special compiler just for the office wi= ll return... I'm sorry that you feel that the maintainers of Libreoffice have taken an easy route; you can certainly show them how easy it is to do by providing some patches/fixes, or working with upstream. I don't see how anyone on freebsd-stable@ will either be interested or knowledgeable in Libreoffice internals. > Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the b= ase compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and docum= ented somewhere else? > > Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base. > > Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in min= d? GPLv3. >> Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interes= t in supporting >> LibreOffice's own Native_Build page makes no mention of a required compi= ler version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a required feat= ure, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with LibreOffice cou= ld've been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the toolchain, that a= re at fault... > >> a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions= . > > So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and t= hat little can be done about it. That is why we're replacing it with LLVM/Clang. > Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers s= hipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recen= t stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and t= hus unable to process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy --= processing those features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our e= rrata about it... It is no secret that our base compiler is old. What do you think happens in newer versions, if not added features and bugfixes? > On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> .. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the >> compiler that is known to work with it, and move on. > > > Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based system,= don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS in the port= is large, and a lot of people are likely to build their own. Not because t= hey like it, but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) i= nterface or... Irrelevant. You choosing to compile with a different compiler adds no value and can't be compared with a different interface. Please fix it yourself, or talk to upstream. Chris