mozilla's install hanging on amd64

Scott Long scottl at
Mon Apr 11 09:38:03 PDT 2005

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>>I don't really care to argue with you on this.  If you want to be upset
>>that your special gcc flags don't work, that's your business.
> My whole point, Scott, is that there is nothing special about "my gcc flags". 
> NOTHING. Setting CPUTYPE to match one's processor flavor is a long-documented 
> way to do things -- fact. Such setting results in the corresponding 
> -march=XXX automatically -- fact. All ports must handle this. Those that can 
> not are broken. Plan and simple. There is nothing to argue: `-O -pipe 
> -march=opteron' must work.
>>Meanwhile I'll continue using Mozilla on my amd64 machine.
> Even a broken thing can be useful to some.

Is my car broken because it can't go 300km/hr?  A Porshe can, so 
shouldn't mine be able to?  My point here is that there is a distinction
between the mozilla port being completely broken, and being broken in
non-standard or specific configurations.  Saying that it's BROKEN
implies that it's 100% unusable, and that gives a false summary of the
problem.  I built it from scratch with a very stock, unmodified system
and it works as well for me as I would expect.  In my eyes, it's not
broken.  But I don't play with custom gcc options.

I'll readily concede that there are a lot of ports that are authored
in an i386-specific way and only work on amd64 by sheer luck. 
Understnad that FreeBSD tends to also be at the leading edge of compiler
development.  While we are using GCC 3.4, many other BSD and Linux 
variants are still using 3.1, 3.2, or even 2.95.  So it's quite possible
that the newer compiler has either bugs or stricter languange 
compliance, and there aren't enough eyes yet to discover and fix these 
problems.  Shouting to everyone that mozilla is BROKEN doesn't help this
very much.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list