Re: [MacPorts] PortfileRecipes modified

On Apr 22, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Joshua Root wrote: > Couple more points: Thank you for your insights. > On 2015-4-23 07:22 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:01 PM, MacPorts wrote: >> >>> Page "PortfileRecipes" was changed by pixi...@macports.org >>> Diff URL: >>>

Re: std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

On 23.04.2015 01:39 AM, Michael Dickens wrote: > Interesting; the macro is actually "_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH_TR1", with > just 1 preceding "_"; at least on my 10.8 & 10.10 installs. Err, sorry. Yes. > This macro is set at > "/opt/local/include/gcc49/c++/x86_64-apple-darwin12/bits/c++config.h:1276"

Re: [MacPorts] PortfileRecipes modified

Couple more points: On 2015-4-23 07:22 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:01 PM, MacPorts wrote: > >> Page "PortfileRecipes" was changed by pixi...@macports.org >> Diff URL: >> >> Revision 84 >> Changes: >>

Re: [MacPorts] PortfileRecipes modified

On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:01 PM, MacPorts wrote: > >> Page "PortfileRecipes" was changed by pixi...@macports.org >> Diff URL: >> >> Revision 84 >> Changes: >> ---8<-

Re: std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

Interesting; the macro is actually "_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH_TR1", with just 1 preceding "_"; at least on my 10.8 & 10.10 installs. This macro is set at "/opt/local/include/gcc49/c++/x86_64-apple-darwin12/bits/c++config.h:1276" on my install, which is part of the configuration of GCC. So, I'd guess t

Re: std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

On 22.04.2015 10:39 PM, Michael Dickens wrote: > Yes, the code includes cmathv (indirectly). This code works on the other > buildbots; just not on the 10.6 one. Is 10.6's GCC 4.9 special somehow? > Maybe I need to include cmath directly? - MLD I can reproduce your problem in my 10.6 VM. std::log2

Re: [MacPorts] PortfileRecipes modified

On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:01 PM, MacPorts wrote: > Page "PortfileRecipes" was changed by pixi...@macports.org > Diff URL: > > Revision 84 > Changes: > ---8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8< > I

Re: std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Michael Dickens wrote: > Yes, the code includes cmathv (indirectly). This code works on the other > buildbots; just not on the 10.6 one. Is 10.6's GCC 4.9 special somehow? > Maybe I need to include cmath directly? - MLD > > Here's more info from the compiler, just

Re: std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

Yes, the code includes cmathv (indirectly). This code works on the other buildbots; just not on the 10.6 one. Is 10.6's GCC 4.9 special somehow? Maybe I need to include cmath directly? - MLD Here's more info from the compiler, just FYI: {{{ FILE.cc:46:54: note: suggested alternative: In file inclu

Re: std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

On 22.04.2015 09:51 PM, Michael Dickens wrote: > One of my ports won't build on the 10.6 buildbot, because it claims the > following (snipped for brevity): > {{{ > /opt/local/bin/g++-mp-4.9 [snip] -std=c++11 -o FILE.cc.o -c FILE.cc > FILE.cc: In constructor "FILE(std::vector >)": > FILE.cc:46:54: e

std::log2 not in c++11 on 10.6 BuiltBot?

One of my ports won't build on the 10.6 buildbot, because it claims the following (snipped for brevity): {{{ /opt/local/bin/g++-mp-4.9 [snip] -std=c++11 -o FILE.cc.o -c FILE.cc FILE.cc: In constructor "FILE(std::vector >)": FILE.cc:46:54: error: "log2" is not a member of "std" (unsi

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:23, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > > On 22.04.2015 07:39 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:> >>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:30, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia >>> wrote: >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Mold

Re: MacPorts' trac in Europe slower than usual

On 22 Apr 2015, at 15:57 , Henry Groen wrote: > I have kicked the server, let me know if you see an improvement. no, still very slow. Perhaps it only happens for me... Marko ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://li

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On 22.04.2015 08:47 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: >> On 22.04.2015 08:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> Too bad Apple didn't contribute the code back to FSF. Or maybe they did and >>> they didn't accept it for some reason? I don't know. But this is the k

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

Hi, - On 22 Apr, 2015, at 20:23, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: > First, a compiler is a somewhat delicate matter and I do not think I've got > experience to "get it right". I don't want to completely break (or break in > subtle ways) FSF GCC on OS X. Feel free to ask me if you stu

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > > You're right. The proper solution would be to add the old driver-driver back > to FSF GCC and get it upstreamed, instead of relying even more on muniversal. > > Personally, I do not wish to do so, for multiple reasons. Too bad Apple didn't

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > On 22.04.2015 08:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: >>> >>> You're right. The proper solution would be to add the old driver-driver >>> back to FSF GCC and get it upstreamed, instead of relyin

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On 22.04.2015 08:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: >> >> You're right. The proper solution would be to add the old driver-driver back >> to FSF GCC and get it upstreamed, instead of relying even more on muniversal. >> >> Personally, I do not wish to

GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On 22.04.2015 07:39 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:> >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:30, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia >> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan wrote: [...] For specific ports, yes. In general, m

Re: standard way to require c++11?

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:30, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan wrote: >>> >>> Yes, that would be adding a new dependency on libgcc and FSF GCC for all >>> C++ ports. But so does using

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > Maybe I need to explain a bit more. > > I have a sparse SVN checkout configured as: > file:///Users/me/app/macports/trunk/dports [nosync] > > I used [nosync] because I'm often bitten by failures during svn > updates when my local changes

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan wrote: >> >> Yes, that would be adding a new dependency on libgcc and FSF GCC for all C++ >> ports. But so does using libc++ on 10.6. Implicitly at least. Fortunately >> that doesn't add

Re: Port variant "libcaca -x11" still pulls in xorg deps...

> On Apr 21, 2015, at 23:53, Marko Käning wrote: > > Hi Jeremy, > > thanks for your helpful response. > > > On 22 Apr 2015, at 00:20 , Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > wrote: >> imlib2's configure script looks like it has a way to disable X11 support, >> but the resulting dylib is still linked

Forward-port of ld64 PPC support

Hi, I'd just quickly like to point anyone interested to https://github.com/michaelweiser/ld64 where I've done some work to forward-port the removed PPC support in ld64 to the latest versions. I imagine it might provide a way to retain support for older OS Xes on PPC without having to keep ancient

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > On 22.04.2015 12:00 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> Thanks again and sorry for the noise, > > No, not noise. Let me explain why. > > >> Hm. Interesting. >> >> Thank you, it seems that running portindex solved the problem indeed. >> I now got a

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On 22.04.2015 12:28 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Wednesday April 22 2015 12:14:09 Mihai Moldovan wrote: >> The portindex is generated on the rsync machine, which is running Linux. If >> doing funky stuff that happens to abort Portfile parsing ungracefully (like >> not wrapping sysctl stuff in

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On Wednesday April 22 2015 12:14:09 Mihai Moldovan wrote: > The portindex is generated on the rsync machine, which is running Linux. If > doing funky stuff that happens to abort Portfile parsing ungracefully (like > not wrapping sysctl stuff in "catch"), the index will be stale for these > port

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On 22.04.2015 12:00 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > Thanks again and sorry for the noise, No, not noise. Let me explain why. > Hm. Interesting. > > Thank you, it seems that running portindex solved the problem indeed. > I now got a long list of outdated ports. That's interesting indeed. > I didn

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > On 22.04.2015 09:00 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> MacPorts is behaving a bit weird. It doesn't report some outdated >> ports and as a consequence doesn't upgrade them. I need some clues >> about where I could look to diagnose the source of th

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On 22.04.2015 09:00 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > MacPorts is behaving a bit weird. It doesn't report some outdated > ports and as a consequence doesn't upgrade them. I need some clues > about where I could look to diagnose the source of the problem. > >> port installed texlive-bin > The following p

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

On Wednesday April 22 2015 09:05:08 Marko Käning wrote: >thanks so much for raising this issue. I was puzzled myself yesterday >that I seemed to have some weird behaviour with outdated ports… > >Same symptoms here! :( I've seen similar things happen (with my own "base" that was last selfupdated

Re: Ports not listed as outdated

Hi Mojca, On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:00 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: > MacPorts is behaving a bit weird. It doesn't report some outdated > ports and as a consequence doesn't upgrade them. I need some clues > about where I could look to diagnose the source of the problem. thanks so much for raising this

Ports not listed as outdated

Hello, MacPorts is behaving a bit weird. It doesn't report some outdated ports and as a consequence doesn't upgrade them. I need some clues about where I could look to diagnose the source of the problem. > port installed texlive-bin The following ports are currently installed: texlive-bin @2014