Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:54:04 -0500 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, office@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <5123CA4C.90703@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> 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> <5123BE8E.2080209@aldan.algebra.com> <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19.02.2013 13:19, Ian Lepore wrote: > All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a > mis-characterization to you, then I apologize. These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after I broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- comments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyone, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failures... I don't think, such "going with the flow" is responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of building a special compiler just for the office will return... Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the base compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and documented somewhere else? > Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base. Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in mind? > Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in supporting LibreOffice's own Native_Build page <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Native_Build>; makes no mention of a required compiler version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a required feature, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with LibreOffice could've been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the toolchain, that are at fault... > a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions. So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and that little can be done about it. Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recent stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and thus unable to process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy -- processing those features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our errata <http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.1R/errata.html>; about it... On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote: > .. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the > compiler that is known to work with it, and move on. Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based system, don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS in the port is large, and a lot of people are likely to build their own. Not because they like it, but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) interface or... -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5123CA4C.90703>