On Sep 9, 2018, at 23:21, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2018-9-10 13:23 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> It is fine for ports to offer different versions to different platforms. Up
>> to now, a "platform" was the combination of an operating system name, major
>> version number, and architecture (PowerPC or Intel). It has been proposed
>> that the C++ standard library should be added to that definition. Code
>> implementing that has already been added to portindex. We have not yet
>> deployed changes to the server to generate separate indexes per C++ standard
>> library, and we have not modified MacPorts base to look for a different
>> index on the server depending on the C++ standard library. We should make
>> both of those changes.
>
> Oh sure, you can multiply the number of portindexes easily enough to
> reflect one more configuration choice. It's not a sustainable design
> direction though.
We're only talking about adding a libc++ index for 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7,
10.8. We're not talking about adding further indexes for other reasons.
