From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 31 10:30:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05F716A4CE; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:30:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from atlas.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (atlas.informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.194.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6DC43D41; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:30:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stolz@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de) Received: from i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (menelaos.informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.194.73]) with ESMTP id j0VAUsos010596; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:30:58 +0100 Received: (from stolz@localhost)j0VAUnYw095523; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:30:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stolz) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:30:49 +0100 From: Volker Stolz To: Alexey Dokuchaev Message-ID: <20050131103049.GG57160@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> References: <200501292340.j0TNe7eq054403@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050131100359.GA98611@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050131100359.GA98611@FreeBSD.org> X-PGP-Key: finger vs@foldr.org X-PGP-Id: 0x3FD1B6B5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Pav Lucistnik cc: mathiasp@virtual-earth.de Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/mozart Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:31:00 -0000 Am 31. Jan 2005 um 11:03 CET schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev: > > lang/mozart Makefile > > Log: > > - Fix build on FreeBSD 5 > > gcc 3.x makes new assumptions on private c++ data > > gcc 2.95 compiles mozart with no problems > > For this very case, I don't want to test it and fix myself since this port > want emacs and stuff, and I do not want to pollute my working system with > this, but since submitter states that the problem with newer GCC is because > it "makes new assumptions on private C++ data", I'd rather see a patch > committed, or some reasoning why it cannot be. Especially in the programming languages-department (and I'll speak for haskell@ here, too), things are often highly compiler dependent. Mostly applications break with older gccs because of c99, but here we're probably (I didn't look too closely) talking about fixes which cannot be come up with by simply looking at the source. In such cases it would be appropriate for the maintainer to file a bug-report upstream, but we shouldn't expect them to be able to handle all possible problems. And since gcc295 is still readily available as a package (insert usual rant about modem-users here) without any limitations I'm aware of, I don't think we should push this. It looks like we're talking about the two bugs mentioned in http://www.mozart-oz.org/cgi-bin/oz-bugs/incoming?expression=gcc-3;user=guest which have not been fixed by the developers yet. Conclusion: Feel free to yell "Send patches", but please bear in mind that a working port is better than a suspended PR. Life's too short. Cheers, Volker -- http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/stolz/ *** PGP *** S/MIME