On 2016-10-06, at 7:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 6 October 2016 at 16:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote: >> >> Ken: apologies for not having thought of this, but myself when I was still >> running 10.6 I've had sufficient success with building C++11 code using a >> (then) recent gcc port. It's possible that things have evolved so much >> nowadays that even that may not cut it anymore. > > This would probably mostly work fine if *all* ports were built with > g++ (= against the same version of mp-provided stdlibc++). I can > easily imagine problems when gcc is switched from, say, version 5 to
10.6+ work great with libc++. I wouldn't feel a need to explore any other options. Just the binaries would help, once y'all decide how to name/specify them. 10.4 and 10.5 users who have PPC machines worth keeping might well have to consider gcc cxx11options, if those systems are to have any path forward to newer software. Jeremy has discussed this on a recent gtk3 ticket. It would not be expected to be part of the standard MacPorts process, as there is already plenty to do. A shadow repository for certain selected ports on these systems, such as the ones I've been building these past few months, would be the most likely way this would be implemented I think.... K _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
