From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 6 20:45:39 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: openoffice@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C82016A400 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:45:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A6E13C4A3 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:45:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6B613797; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:45:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix, from userid 1203) id 797F01A7D2; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:45:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A03F1A7CD; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:45:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:45:38 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: NAKATA Maho In-Reply-To: <20070130.101948.48481022.chat95@mac.com> Message-ID: References: <20070130.101948.48481022.chat95@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: openoffice@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: lang/gcc-ooo removal? X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:45:39 -0000 Hi, thanks for the nice and detailed explanation! On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, NAKATA Maho wrote: > Again, criterion for buildability, Hamburg team uses that > gcc341+vis+enum. If, for some cws, build fails with that gcc, simply we > must go back fix them. But they welcome patches for gcc-3.3 regressions > and gcc-4.x syntax strictness. What that means? For every milestones, we > check them and fix them! That's why you think OOo is buildable with > gcc-3.3, 4.0 and 4.1. This is not automatic. I fully understand and appreciate this effort, which certainly is not small an amount of work! The one thing that puzzles me is that my employeer is the #2 contributor to OpenOffice, #1 behind Sun, and we have not had nor needed such old versions of OpenOffice as far as I can tell. Rather, we are currently using GCC 4.1.x and this seems to meet our needs sufficiently well. >> On a related note, why do we need six(!) ports of OpenOffice in the >> collection? > No, seven ;) Wow. =:-o > * We can remove gcc-ooo dependency for openoffice.org-2 port. But not > -devel port. Thus we cannot remove. How do you think? My main motivation was getting rid of lang/gcc-ooo, and removing the dependency for openoffice.org-2 will be a welcome step in that direction. Hopefully Sun will change policies at one point or something else happens so that we can get rid of the final depdency later. Thanks, Gerald