Why not use normal CONFLICTS in lang/gcc43 instead of custom?

Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer.com
Sun Nov 29 13:05:36 UTC 2009

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 (Jerry) Pfeifer   gerald at pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list