Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:54:02 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, office@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com>, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <20130219195402.GB39626@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <5123CF37.7000506@FreeBSD.org> 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> <5123CF37.7000506@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:15:03PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> The short answer is we cannot support gcc 4.6+ unless we have a
> dedicated *ports* compiler.
> {blah blah}
> What do we go from here? I don't know. One thing I know for sure is
> we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.
>
> Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.
Ideas and thoughts:
1. Do away with the base system concept. Yup, my usual broken record
commentary. The sooner FreeBSD does away with this the better. Do not
tell me "there are too many [compiler] possibilities to take into
account", because...
2. Go look at DragonflyBSD and how they did it. As of February 2013 gcc
4.6 is their stock compiler (with gcc 4.4 also available because some
ports don't build with 4.6), and their build infrastructure tests
everything ("base system" as well as all their packages/ports). Here
are references for my statements:
http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2013/02/07/11175.html
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2013-February/129381.html
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-December/017701.html
As for "licensing concerns" with DFBSD and gcc, see these (comments are
worth reading here too):
http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2012/10/02/10481.html
http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2007/12/09/2557.html
The DFBSD license:
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/developer/DragonFly_BSD_License/
If another BSD can play nice with a ""conflicting"" (note excessive use
of quotes) license, then why can't FreeBSD? Who within the Project is
calling these shots? Licensing zealotism benefits no user, but I can
see it benefiting certain companies whose commercial products are
reliant on FreeBSD. So out with it already.
--
| Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Mountain View, CA, US |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130219195402.GB39626>