From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec  4 11:05:04 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7C5B216A4CE; Thu,  4 Dec 2003 11:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A580543F93; Thu,  4 Dec 2003 11:05:02 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB4J4keF035385;
	Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:04:50 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200312041904.hB4J4keF035385@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:04:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: mb@imp.ch
In-Reply-To: <20031204192426.B73461@cvs.imp.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.org
cc: openoffice@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: openoffice port is broken wrt gcc and java dependencies
X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD <freebsd-openoffice.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-openoffice>,
	<mailto:freebsd-openoffice-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-openoffice>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-openoffice-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-openoffice>,
	<mailto:freebsd-openoffice-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:05:04 -0000

On  4 Dec, Martin Blapp wrote:
> 
> Hi DES,
> 
>>  - openoffice-1.0 unconditionally requires gcc 3.2 from ports, even on
>>    systems which already have gcc 3.2 or newer in base
> 
> Because there where coredumps with different versions, even with the one
> in the system. Have you tried to compile it with the system gcc ?

It also doesn't even come close to compiling with gcc 3.3.