Re: Why NOT using FreeBSD? Re: ports/169581: editors/libreoffice:

From: Doug Barton <dougb_at_FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:22:47 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 07/03/2012 11:34, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:59:03AM +0200, Hartmann, O. wrote:
>> On 07/02/12 08:09, Sayetsky Anton wrote:
>>> I will test libreoffice build on 8.3-RELEASE today or tomorrow.
>>> I have both gstreamer and boost installed now.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We use FreeBSD 9.0STABLE and FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT (both amd64).
>>
>> devel/boost-lib gets reeled in now by editors/libreoffice by default, so
>> it doesn't need to be installed explicitely.
>>
>> I saw a patch flushed in yesterday, submitted by bapt_at_. This patch also
>> installs LLVM/CLANG from the ports - with ASSERTS deactivated.
>>
>> I have on both systems, FreeBSD 9 and 10, LLVM/CLANG 3.1 as the standard
>> backend compiler, I guess this version has the suspected ASSERTS activated.
>>
>> Why another LLVM port? We already have LLVM/CLANG in the base system (9
>> and 19). If the ASSERTS proble is the cause for breaks reported on the
>> list and elsewhere on the net, why isn't the maintainer still stuck on
>> the "old" version?
>>
>> I just managed it to install the prior version on broken systems and was
>> really lucky having LibreOffice working again. But the other day I was
>> bothered by the next non-working version and now I have lots of
>> notebooks remaining with NO LibreOffice on FBSD 9-STABLE.
>>
>> This is not what I expect from quality securing! It is simply a mess and
>> definitely another reason and point for the thread "Why NOT using FreeBSD".
>
> sure libreoffice is so easy to port...
> 
> /me officially gives up with that libreoffice port, open for new volunteers 

If you don't have time to work on the port, then don't, that's not a
problem. But throwing a hissy fit here doesn't help at all. It's a plain
fact that a working office suite is a basic requirement for most desktop
users. If _we_ can't provide that (note, not you, personally, we, as a
project), it's a valid reason for users to avoid FreeBSD for desktop use.

If we're ever going to make progress in this area we have to be willing
to examine and absorb facts; and then act accordingly.

Doug

- -- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJP9LQnAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEYk4H/0TcxjVnax0xgrt4/3WMvwWU
t/GNQ7Fws3EJSrZN2vB3LSnmwRv7UbkmotXLzirS+f/SmwREUH0677DV3EFlxuxx
WvXvtYexu4XHWOeODZi5m8crbNUM94HLnwTfo2gecMah+eL6M46EoBAfCJT4NtUD
1AYIsZTpiEqEvLHJCNj+Mwt0YiH3XxAdRhhfSMolKBm7B6lqOsEA5cEnA2QTWBWI
bDeUB8hZuW1q6O5U60xdTZMjDQNGroVg6nuCtTihXj7/DWKR41Wgzezh14qFKs7m
Hki/eRGzQA3DTLKuf51PY+FO7epBeWC5YCNxe52ASqU+pKdUYpfS3vCw3BmbqPg=
=4Mp6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wed Jul 04 2012 - 19:26:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:28 UTC