On Jan 29, 2013, at 01:19, Johan Ekenberg wrote:
> Please, do whatever's the right thing! Let me know if I need to do anything!
Thanks. Done:
https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102171
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
On Jan 28, 2013, at 19:05, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:35:34PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2013, at 07:13, Clemens Lang wrote:
>>> Ryan, can you confirm it builds on PPC?
>>
>> Once I removed the supported_archs line, it built fine on a PowerBook
>> G4 running Leo
On Jan 28, 2013, at 14:18, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> Just a heads up, in Xcode 4.6.:
>
> Deprecation of the llvm-gcc Compiler and GDB Debugger
> Xcode 4.6 is the last major Xcode release that will include the llvm-gcc
> compiler and the GDB debugger. Please move to use the Apple LLVM compiler a
Hi Johan,
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:35:34PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 07:13, Clemens Lang wrote:
> > Ryan, can you confirm it builds on PPC?
>
> Once I removed the supported_archs line, it built fine on a PowerBook
> G4 running Leopard. It produced its help message when I
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:00:58PM -0800, asche...@macports.org wrote:
> larn: bumping the revision number for previous fix
since the port previously didn't build and your fix didn't change any
installed files, the revbump was not necessary.
This is just to inform you for the next time you m
Just a heads up, in Xcode 4.6.:
Deprecation of the llvm-gcc Compiler and GDB Debugger
Xcode 4.6 is the last major Xcode release that will include the llvm-gcc
compiler and the GDB debugger. Please move to use the Apple LLVM compiler and
LLDB debugger, and file a bug in bugreporter.apple.com for
On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:19, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>
>> I'd prefer names like:
>> gstreamer-1.0 and gstreamer-0.10
>
>> Should we have a policy of 1.0 by default, 0.10 by variant?
>
> The problem with "-X.Y" suffixes (instead of
On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2013-1-29 04:20 , Sean Farley wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
>>> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge
I'd like to see these configure.compiler changes rolled in:
r101216 - Low risk, helpful for debugging
r101498 - Update macports-llvm-gcc-4.2 to reflect changes in the port
r101933 - dragonegg compilers options
r102154 - Fix a bug I just noticed in r101933
--Jeremy
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:39 AM, J
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:19, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> I'd prefer names like:
> gstreamer-1.0 and gstreamer-0.10
> Should we have a policy of 1.0 by default, 0.10 by variant?
The problem with "-X.Y" suffixes (instead of our traditional "XY" suffixes) is
that they cannot be used verbatim
On Jan 27, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Ryan Stonecipher
wrote:
> Both versions can be installed in parallel and some dependent projects may
> not yet support the new API, so I believe port names should be changed to
> allow such parallel installation.
Agreed.
> Below are revised names in the following
On Jan 27, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> @@ -57,10 +58,8 @@
>> configure.cppflags-append-I${prefix}/include/ossp
>> configure.ldflags-append-headerpad_max_install_names
>>
>> -# building psql with clang causes segfault on query; see #31717
>> -if {${configure.compiler} == "c
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2013-1-29 04:20 , Sean Farley wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
>>> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merg
Workaround is 'extract.asroot yes', BTW. (Obviously doesn't help for
non-root installations.)
On 2013-1-15 10:06 , William Siegrist wrote:
> I don't think we want to have a mix of patches applied to the buildbots,
> since it makes reproducing problems harder. It might be useful to have the
> bas
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:02, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Can we use the compiler_blacklist_versions portgroup here? I think it's:
>>
>> compiler.blacklist-append gcc-4.0 {gcc-4.2 < 5646}
>
> Oh awesome. I thought it only worked with c
On 2013-1-29 04:20 , Sean Farley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
>> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge to
>> the branch? Eligible changes at this point should b
On 2013-01-28 18:20, Sean Farley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
>> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge to
>> the branch? Eligible changes at this point should b
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:02, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2013-1-29 04:22 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 08:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:39:38PM +1100, Joshua Root wrote:
As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
the en
On 2013-1-29 04:22 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 08:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:39:38PM +1100, Joshua Root wrote:
>>> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
>>> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to
On Jan 27, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 23:45, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> Revision: 102102
>> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102102
>> Author: jerem...@macports.org
>> Date: 2013-01-27 21:45:30 -0800 (Sun, 27 Jan 2013)
>> Log Message:
On Jan 28, 2013, at 08:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:39:38PM +1100, Joshua Root wrote:
>> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
>> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge to
>> the branch? Eligible changes at thi
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge to
> the branch? Eligible changes at this point should be low-risk,
> well-tested bug fixes only (or
On Jan 27, 2013, at 23:58, Ryan Stonecipher wrote:
> Adam, Dave, Eric, Jeremy, Jyrki, Kimura, Leo, Mike, Ryan Schmidt, and
> "NoDamage",
> Each of you maintains at least one port which depends on the currently-ported
> 0.10.x versions of GStreamer and its extensions.
> Version 1.0 of GStreamer
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:39:38PM +1100, Joshua Root wrote:
> As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
> the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge to
> the branch? Eligible changes at this point should be low-risk,
> well-tested bug fixes o
What's the deal with aqbanking's python24 variant? It implies that there
should be a build dependency on python, but if it depended on any
version >= 2.5, the variant would be completely unnecessary, right?
Neither python24 or python25 appear anywhere in its rdeps at present,
AFAICT.
- Josh
__
As per the milestone due date, I'm thinking we should do the release at
the end of the month. If there anything else we really need to merge to
the branch? Eligible changes at this point should be low-risk,
well-tested bug fixes only (or purely routine stuff like addition of new
configure.compiler
26 matches
Mail list logo
