Re: [149057] trunk/dports/math

Is this different from what the makeicns port does? > On May 27, 2016, at 7:30 AM, mcalh...@macports.org wrote: > > Revision > 149057 > Author > mcalh...@macports.org > Date > 2016-05-27 05:30:37 -0700 (Fri, 27 May 2016) > Log Message > > octave family: generate icons with XCode prior to 4.5

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

On Sep 5, 2016, at 19:10, Fred Wright wrote: > > >> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> But only do this if this software requires it. Otherwise, let MacPorts use >> its default value of -Os. > > Seriously? In this day and age? > > AIUI, Apple used to use -Os

Re: gdb (Re: lldb ...)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, [ISO-8859-1] René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Wednesday August 31 2016 17:29:54 Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > >The gdb port instructs the user to modify a system LaunchDaemon to > >effectively circumvent taskgated. I frankly think that's an awful idea, > >and future ports should

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

On 2016-9-6 10:10 , Fred Wright wrote: On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Ryan Schmidt wrote: But only do this if this software requires it. Otherwise, let MacPorts use its default value of -Os. Seriously? In this day and age? AIUI, Apple used to use -Os for their own builds in the PPC era, since it

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Fred Wright wrote: > Interesting, given that the Linux kernel *requires* optimization to build > correctly, due to some issue with macros vs. inline functions. Of course > that's gcc, not clang, and it doesn't necessarily rule out -Os. > Yes.

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Fred Wright wrote: > > > But when they switched to Intel, they also switched > > to -O2. This allowed them to inflate the performance benefit of the > > architecture switch. :-) > > > > ...as long as

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

I was thinking (and have been) building the emulator with -O3 as I understand from what I can gather from that -O3 prioritizes code speed over code size, and the emulator is both small already and speed-hungry….but I see there is also -Ofast in clang-3.8 (which is what my MacPro is building it

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Fred Wright wrote: > But when they switched to Intel, they also switched > to -O2. This allowed them to inflate the performance benefit of the > architecture switch. :-) > ...as long as -O2 worked. Experience from FreeBSD and from early

Re: port only builds with build_arch=i386 on command line -- any way to specify that in the portfile?

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > But only do this if this software requires it. Otherwise, let MacPorts use > its default value of -Os. Seriously? In this day and age? AIUI, Apple used to use -Os for their own builds in the PPC era, since it was needed to keep the bloat down to a

Re: [MacPorts] #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg

> On Sep 5, 2016, at 4:09 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > >> On Sep 5, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> >>> On Sep 5, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Craig Treleaven wrote: >>> >>> Not to belabour the issue, but should it

Re: [152202] trunk/dports/devel

Ryan Schmidt writes: >> On Aug 31, 2016, at 3:59 PM, s...@macports.org wrote: >> >> Revision >> 152202 >> Author >> s...@macports.org >> Date >> 2016-08-31 13:59:44 -0700 (Wed, 31 Aug 2016) >> Log Message >> >> folly: add new port >> Added Paths >> >> •

Re: [MacPorts] #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg

> On Sep 5, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Sep 5, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Craig Treleaven wrote: >> >> Not to belabour the issue, but should it not be the impact to port users >> that determines whether a change is “minor” or not? >

Re: lldb ...

On Monday September 05 2016 16:23:23 Rainer Müller wrote: > I see no problem in generating certificates automatically. We also add > users to the system or create launchd configurations without forcing the > user to do it manually. Yeah, exactly, I'm not really comfortable with adding users to

Re: [MacPorts] #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg

> On Sep 5, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Craig Treleaven wrote: > > Not to belabour the issue, but should it not be the impact to port users that > determines whether a change is “minor” or not? I believe the "minorness" of the change is wholly up to the maintainer. > The number

Re: lldb ...

On 2016-09-05 12:56, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Monday September 05 2016 12:21:08 Rainer Müller wrote: > > Do the steps in that TN include the trust setting and the magic command in > lldb's code-signing document? I was talking about generating self-signed identities/certificates and that is

Re: lldb ...

On 2016-09-05 13:29, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Reminds me: I'm not really comfortable with the idea that PortFiles > would be able to create and store certificates. I'd rather see a form > where they can check for the availability of the identity, and then > inform the user exactly what command to

Re: [MacPorts] #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg

> On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:32 PM, MacPorts wrote: >> >> #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg >> -+--- >> Reporter: ctreleaven@…|

Re: lldb ...

On Monday September 05 2016 12:49:22 Rainer Müller wrote: > In a Portfile you would not be interested in the name of the identity, > the but trust policy it grants (firewall bypass, task_for_pid, etc.). That depends, I'd say. Is it even possible to uncouple identifier and trust policy to the

Re: lldb ...

On Monday September 05 2016 12:21:08 Rainer Müller wrote: Do the steps in that TN include the trust setting and the magic command in lldb's code-signing document? > However, another thing I did not think of before, what should be used as > expiry date on the certificate? According to the TN, OS

Re: lldb ...

On 2016-09-05 00:57, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > In a first draft the command accepted a list of binaries to sign, and read > the identify from a configuration file. I suppose that corresponds to what > you mean with a declarative syntax? > I then went to a simpler, single-binary interface because

Re: lldb ...

On 2016-09-02 14:19, Rainer Müller wrote: > For step 4), how to give user 'macports' access to the System.keychain > without entering a password? As an alternative, how to import the > identity (both private/public key) into a different keychain with > unlocked access? I found the missing