Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:05:35 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why not use normal CONFLICTS in lang/gcc43 instead of custom? Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0911291402580.20270@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <op.uvmf0xir9aq2h7@localhost> References: <op.uvgzawdm9aq2h7@localhost> <alpine.LSU.1.99.0906160709360.29901@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <4A375DBA.4010305@FreeBSD.org> <op.uvmf0xir9aq2h7@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy et al,
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> I think ${LOCALBASE}/bin/gcc295 would be enough. As you say, gcc295 is
>> dying, while ccache is actively used. It's quite annoying to remove such
>> check from the Makefile, while I doubt anyone is still going to compile
>> gcc43 with gcc295 installed in a non-standard location.
> Yes, I agree about that ${LOCALBASE}. Either put full path or remove
> gcc295 sound good to me.
a bit later than I had hoped for, but this is now resolved in that in
agreement with the maintainer I removed lang/gcc295 and the checks for
a gcc295 executable from the other lang/gcc ports (with the exception
of lang/gcc44 where I will do this shortly but wanted to give people a
bit more of a migration period since it is the designated successor
per MOVED).
Gerald
--
Gerald (Jerry) Pfeifer gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.1.99.0911291402580.20270>