On 2013-1-30 13:16 , Nicolas Pavillon wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 09:50, ni...@macports.org wrote:
>>
>>> -license GPL-2+
>>> +license {GPL-2+ GPL-3+}
>>
>> How is that different?
>
> Hello,
>
> The main point
>> +license {GPL-2+ GPL-3+}
>
> Then, the license correction indeed does not change anything in practice, but
> as the choice is explicitly given, I changed it for the sake of completeness.
GPL-2+ completely envelops GPL-3+: why not just use GPL-2+ then?
___
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 09:50, ni...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> Revision: 102239
>> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102239
>> Author: ni...@macports.org
>> Date: 2013-01-29 07:50:15 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
>> Log Message:
>> ---
On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> gcc-4.0 should be able to build universal binaries, but I don't really want
>> to waste effort on debugging exactly what isn't working there, so I'll just
>> blacklist gcc-4.0 if +universal … I've got a Leopard install somewhere
>> around
On Jan 29, 2013, at 15:58, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> gcc-4.2 is Leopard's XCode's official compiler, so it should be the default
> (and looks to be on base trunk).
I have not verified whether base uses gcc-4.2 on Leopard in trunk, but I would
have no objection to that.
> gcc-4.0 sho
On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:56, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> Revision: 102254
>> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102254
>> Author: jerem...@macports.org
>> Date: 2013-01-29 08:56:01 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
>> Log Message:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:05, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> Revision: 102258
>> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102258
>> Author: jerem...@macports.org
>> Date: 2013-01-29 09:05:15 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
>> Log Message:
>>
On Jan 29, 2013, at 09:50, ni...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 102239
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102239
> Author: ni...@macports.org
> Date: 2013-01-29 07:50:15 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
> Log Message:
> ---
> pairs: correct license and suppress license conflict
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 06:11, Peter Danecek wrote:
>
>> I am just browsing some Portfiles to understand how to handle fortran builds
>> correctly.
>>
>> At this point I came about something I may not understand in
>> devel/fortrancl/Portfile (
On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:33, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 102260
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102260
> Author: jerem...@macports.org
> Date: 2013-01-29 09:33:51 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
> Log Message:
> ---
> dcmtk: Use compiler.blacklist
>
> Modified Pa
On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:05, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 102258
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102258
> Author: jerem...@macports.org
> Date: 2013-01-29 09:05:15 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
> Log Message:
> ---
> Use macports-llvm-gcc-4.2 as a backup instead
On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:56, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 102254
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102254
> Author: jerem...@macports.org
> Date: 2013-01-29 08:56:01 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
> Log Message:
> ---
> cairo: Use compiler.blacklist
>
> Modified Pa
On Jan 29, 2013, at 13:38, pva...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 102262
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102262
> Author: pva...@macports.org
> Date: 2013-01-29 11:38:58 -0800 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013)
> Log Message:
> ---
> qlipper: checksum fix
>
> Modified Paths:
> -
I addressed Ryan's comments and updated the ticket. Will somebody take a
took at it?
Thanks.
Cezar
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> Cezar,
>
> We're happy to have you maintain the zorba port! Sorry we forgot about the
> ticket to update the port. I'll have a look at
On Jan 29, 2013, at 06:11, Peter Danecek wrote:
> I am just browsing some Portfiles to understand how to handle fortran builds
> correctly.
>
> At this point I came about something I may not understand in
> devel/fortrancl/Portfile (or is it just a copy-paste bug?)
>
> Why the g95 variant wou
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:52:11AM -0800, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 102156
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/102156
> Author: jerem...@macports.org
> Date: 2013-01-28 10:52:11 -0800 (Mon, 28 Jan 2013)
> Log Message:
> ---
> Update portconfigure::arch_
Hi all,
I am just browsing some Portfiles to understand how to handle fortran
builds correctly.
At this point I came about something I may not understand in devel/
fortrancl/Portfile (or is it just a copy-paste bug?)
Why the g95 variant would depend on port:gcc45 ?
--- snip ---
variant g
Merged.
On 2013-1-29 05:41 , Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> 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
18 matches
Mail list logo
