Somehow attribution has been screwed here-- I will perhaps blame the appalling Android Gmail app that I used to reply to an earlier message.
On 19 February 2013 18:54, Mikhail T. <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > 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... I'm sorry that you feel that the maintainers of Libreoffice have taken an easy route; you can certainly show them how easy it is to do by providing some patches/fixes, or working with upstream. I don't see how anyone on freebsd-stable@ will either be interested or knowledgeable in Libreoffice internals. > 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? GPLv3. >> 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. That is why we're replacing it with LLVM/Clang. > 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... It is no secret that our base compiler is old. What do you think happens in newer versions, if not added features and bugfixes? > 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... Irrelevant. You choosing to compile with a different compiler adds no value and can't be compared with a different interface. Please fix it yourself, or talk to upstream. Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
