From owner-freebsd-office@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 19 18:54:07 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: office@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B8C552 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:54:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from smtp.rcn.com (smtp.rcn.com [69.168.97.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C5BE56 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:54:07 +0000 (UTC) X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=YKIdOG6x c=1 sm=0 a=fEl05wXzeJCkBz9gs2itqQ==:17 a=XBbVgglCP-sA:10 a=ZrqZzSrQiogA:10 a=YNqtyO0l_hcA:10 a=LaogzpLLAAAA:8 a=CqN0Xa_Ne8wA:10 a=B7aBkD-rAAAA:8 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=q_EOvSjL-diwKzKj6BcA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=GcTa5IXod3kA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=rDbwDDubdOr4YAqla0UA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=SK8d7xaoX86Is8Os:21 a=fEl05wXzeJCkBz9gs2itqQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com header.from=mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.mail=mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com; spf=neutral; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.user=anat; auth=pass (PLAIN) Received-SPF: neutral (smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com: 209.6.63.29 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of aldan.algebra.com) Received: from [209.6.63.29] ([209.6.63.29:57511] helo=utka.zajac) by smtp.rcn.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.49 r(42060/42061)) with ESMTPA id 43/60-28101-D4AC3215; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:54:05 -0500 Message-ID: <5123CA4C.90703@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:54:04 -0500 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Lepore Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? References: <511CED39.2010909@aldan.algebra.com> <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com> <5123ADEC.2040103@aldan.algebra.com> <5123BE8E.2080209@aldan.algebra.com> <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <1361297952.1164.83.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Adrian Chadd , office@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, Chris Rees X-BeenThere: freebsd-office@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Office applications on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:54:07 -0000 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 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 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