On Jun 14, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Craig Treleaven wrote:
> At 6:28 AM +1000 6/15/12, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2012-6-15 06:14 , Craig Treleaven wrote:
>> > The port I've been working on (endlessly, it seems) compiles fine on
>> > 10.6 but fails on 10.7. After a few runs trying both clang and llvm, I
On 2012-6-15 12:33 , Craig Treleaven wrote:
> Failure with clang comes earlier, ala:
>
>> /usr/bin/clang -c -pipe -pipe -D_ISOC99_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
>> -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_DARWIN_C_SOURCE -DPIC -pipe -O2 -arch x86_64
>> -std=c99 -fomit-frame-pointer -fPIC -g -Wall -Wno-parentheses
>>
At 6:28 AM +1000 6/15/12, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2012-6-15 06:14 , Craig Treleaven wrote:
> The port I've been working on (endlessly, it seems) compiles fine on
> 10.6 but fails on 10.7. After a few runs trying both clang and llvm, I
> [...]
Well first of all it's running 'gcc', not obeying $
On 2012-6-15 06:14 , Craig Treleaven wrote:
> Hi:
>
> The port I've been working on (endlessly, it seems) compiles fine on
> 10.6 but fails on 10.7. After a few runs trying both clang and llvm, I
> thought I'd be able to get around the problem by installing port
> apple-gcc42 and using that to bu
Hi:
The port I've been working on (endlessly, it seems) compiles fine on
10.6 but fails on 10.7. After a few runs trying both clang and llvm,
I thought I'd be able to get around the problem by installing port
apple-gcc42 and using that to build my project:
sudo port -dn install configure.co
This just got more enigmatic. I expect another message soon with no
sender as well.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:15 PM, thyarles nascimento
wrote:
>
--
Andrea
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mai
> Yes, the only difference being no on will be upgrading to it--they'll have to
> install -devel like they did when it first became available.
That's OK. That's the way using *-devel should work anyway, right?
I'll hopefully get this put in place tonight. Thanks! - MLD
> I think I'd prefer to push folks using qt4-mac-devel to using qt4-mac,
> so I'll try the "replaced_by" & revbump path. Later on, I assume I can
> remove the "replace_by", do another revbump (or version up), and have
> qt4-mac-devel be fresh and new again?
Yes, the only difference being no on wi
I think I'd prefer to push folks using qt4-mac-devel to using qt4-mac,
so I'll try the "replaced_by" & revbump path. Later on, I assume I can
remove the "replace_by", do another revbump (or version up), and have
qt4-mac-devel be fresh and new again?
___
On 2012-6-15 00:34 , Michael Dickens wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:29 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> Shouldn't 5.0 be called qt5-mac?
>
> Yes, I guess it should! Good catch. I wonder if there will be a Qt 4.9
> offering (or even 4.8.3 beta), which would then require qt4-mac-devel
> again? Can I fo
> Yes, I guess it should! Good catch. I wonder if there will be a Qt 4.9
> offering (or even 4.8.3 beta), which would then require qt4-mac-devel
> again? Can I force qt4-mac-devel to upgrade to qt4-mac, at least
> temporarily?
Do replaced_by and a revbump :-) There's also an obsolete portgroup
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:29 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> Shouldn't 5.0 be called qt5-mac?
Yes, I guess it should! Good catch. I wonder if there will be a Qt 4.9
offering (or even 4.8.3 beta), which would then require qt4-mac-devel
again? Can I force qt4-mac-devel to upgrade to qt4-mac, at least
tempo
On 2012-6-15 00:14 , Michael Dickens wrote:
> I recently updated qt4-mac from 4.7.4 to 4.8.2. For those of you using
> qt4-mac-devel (4.8.0), I will be moving it to the 5.0 alpha release as
> soon as it compiles cleanly for me. So, if you're still using
> qt4-mac-devel, please switch to using qt4
I recently updated qt4-mac from 4.7.4 to 4.8.2. For those of you using
qt4-mac-devel (4.8.0), I will be moving it to the 5.0 alpha release as
soon as it compiles cleanly for me. So, if you're still using
qt4-mac-devel, please switch to using qt4-mac instead since it's
actually more recent (for no
14 matches
Mail list logo
