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
Using the full path will not work too well either with different LOCALBASEs
though I guess one could check /usr/local, $PREFIX, and $LOCALBASE and
consider that good enough.
I think ${LOCALBASE}/bin/gcc295 would be enough. As you say, gcc295 is
dying, while ccache is actively used. It's quite
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:54:18 -0500, Alex Dupre a...@freebsd.org wrote:
Using the full path will not work too well either with different
LOCALBASEs
though I guess one could check /usr/local, $PREFIX, and $LOCALBASE and
consider that good enough.
I think ${LOCALBASE}/bin/gcc295 would be
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
I am trying to install x11/gnome2 last night and the build has gotten
stop at lang/gcc43, because of conflict with lang/gcc295. But wait, I
don't have lang/gcc295 install. I only have ccache installed that has
put 'gcc295' in
Hello Gerald,
I am trying to install x11/gnome2 last night and the build has gotten stop
at lang/gcc43, because of conflict with lang/gcc295. But wait, I don't
have lang/gcc295 install. I only have ccache installed that has put
'gcc295' in /usr/local/libexec/ccache/ and this path is in the
