Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:13:31 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> To: chat95@mac.com (NAKATA Maho) Cc: openoffice@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: OOo-1.1.4 and gcc-3.4 Message-ID: <200501111113.j0BBDVk7069418@corbulon.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <20050111.183457.189733707.chat95@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear NAKATA, Obviously, you have a very strict approach to this work. However, your approach is quite different from that of the rest of the FreeBSD ports collection. Imagine, each port building its own compiler! Even if each *significant* port was to build its own compiler, it would still be a nightmare. You'd have a kde-gcc, gnome-gcc, xorg-gcc, xfree86-gcc, mozilla-gcc (with optional gnome-gcc), etc. This is not right. > :( gccs always have regressions. that is the reason why I committed > lang/gcc-ooo and I fixed the version of gcc to compile OOo. This is HORRIBLE. We should not be forking a compiler like that. You should have made our compiler people add your fixes to the system compiler and/or to the gcc-* ports. > If you are talking about my policy, > please see Policy section of > http://porting.openoffice.org/freebsd/ > Provide vanilla OOo package. Changes must be minimal or enhancements > must be activated via special build flags. I'm sorry, but your policy contradicts the FreeBSD ports policy -- at least, my understanding of it. If this letter of mine is not sufficiently convincing, let's ask portmgr@ and ports@ for mediation. Or, maybe, I'll just create an editors/openoffice-clean. Yours, -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501111113.j0BBDVk7069418>