$ sudo port -v upgrade lftp
Error: Variant ssl conflicts with tls
Error: Unable to upgrade port: 1
$ port installed lftp
The following ports are currently installed:
lftp @3.5.6_0+tls (active)
Even though ssl is the default variant, I don't think this is a correct
behavior for upgrade. I think
This seems a bug...
mkdir MacPorts
sudo mv MacPorts /usr/local
cd MacPorts-1.4.0
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/MacPorts \
--with-install-user=$USER \
--with-install-group=$USER
make make install
...
/usr/bin/install -c -o geo -g geo -m 444 portstyle.7
AFAIK, The darwinports1.0 Tcl Library needs to be in /Library as that
is the allowed magic directory for system-wide available frameworks
(per Apple).
On 27 Mar 2007, at 17:29, George Georgalis wrote:
This seems a bug...
mkdir MacPorts
sudo mv MacPorts /usr/local
cd MacPorts-1.4.0
On Mar 27, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
$ sudo port -v upgrade lftp
Error: Variant ssl conflicts with tls
Error: Unable to upgrade port: 1
$ port installed lftp
The following ports are currently installed:
lftp @3.5.6_0+tls (active)
Even though ssl is the default variant, I
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:35:48PM -0400, Randall Wood wrote:
AFAIK, The darwinports1.0 Tcl Library needs to be in /Library as that
is the allowed magic directory for system-wide available frameworks
(per Apple).
well I don't want system-wide I want MacPorts contained... so per
the other
On Mar 27, 2007, at 14:37, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
No... MacPorts just needs to write some things in /Library/Tcl/
darwinports1.0, that's all. But I don't know why it thinks it needs
to do that.
MacPorts uses the system-supplied Tcl interpreter, and /Library/Tcl
is the standard location for
Hi all,
Trunk contains new code for configure flags and default universal
variant code.
It would be great if this could be tested more and released as soon
as possible:
- it would allow maintainers to work on universal variants
- it would allow us to simplify many portfiles by removing:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Paul Guyot wrote:
Besides, trunk code produces -O2 binaries for autoconf-based ports,
while any such port with the previous line is compiled -O0 with 1.4.0.
Might -Os be a better choice for the default?
--
Daniel J. Luke
On Mar 28, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Paul Guyot wrote:
Besides, trunk code produces -O2 binaries for autoconf-based
ports, while any such port with the previous line is compiled -O0
with 1.4.0.
Might -Os be a better choice for the default?
-O2
