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 ger...@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
