Re: llvm / clang and thread_local storage problems

On 2016-10-08, at 10:03 PM, Stephen J. Butler wrote: > FYI, it's in the Xcode 8 release notes: > > https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/DeveloperTools/RN-Xcode/Introduction.html > > I did a quick test file and it seems to compile with Apple clang. No clue on > compatibility

Re: Epiphany requires gnupg and does not accept gnupg21?

On 10/8/16 7:03 PM, David Evans wrote: > On 10/8/16 5:29 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >>> On Oct 8, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote: >>> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> while trying to upgrade my gimp2 port today, I stumbled upon >>> epiphany

Re: llvm / clang and thread_local storage problems

FYI, it's in the Xcode 8 release notes: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/DeveloperTools/RN-Xcode/Introduction.html I did a quick test file and it seems to compile with Apple clang. No clue on compatibility issues though. On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrot

Re: llvm / clang and thread_local storage problems

> On Oct 8, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Ken Cunningham > wrote: > > I've run into this again tonight. > > I'm using, at this moment, clang-3.7 / llvm-3.7 with macports-created libc++ > and libc++abi. > > > Every once in a while, a port I'm trying to create or build will error out > due to this: >

llvm / clang and thread_local storage problems

I've run into this again tonight. I'm using, at this moment, clang-3.7 / llvm-3.7 with macports-created libc++ and libc++abi. Every once in a while, a port I'm trying to create or build will error out due to this: error: thread-local storage is not supported for the current target /opt/local

Re: Epiphany requires gnupg and does not accept gnupg21?

On 10/8/16 5:29 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear all, >> >> while trying to upgrade my gimp2 port today, I stumbled upon >> epiphany throwing this error: >> >>> sudo port install epi

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

Please, everyone, stop. We are keeping our Trac issue tracker; this has been decided. We will not use GitHub issues at this time because it does not have the features we need. We will move our code to GitHub because it has been requested by many users over the years and will help attract new dev

Re: Epiphany requires gnupg and does not accept gnupg21?

> On Oct 8, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > while trying to upgrade my gimp2 port today, I stumbled upon > epiphany throwing this error: > >> sudo port install epiphany ---> Computing dependencies for >> epiphany Er

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > I understand that. Many long-running projects are using their own Git > infrastructure with Trac, Redmine and others. What I don't understand is > why moving to GitHub at all when the tooling is clearly insufficient for > the project. The a

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Brandon Allbery wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: I for one don't understand why one would carry around all that baggage anyhow. Why not leave the old Trac as is and start fresh with a simple, reduced issue tracker When the simple reduced tracker is,

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > What concerns me is the statement that in this migration to github, github > and trac are kept completely separate, with no automatic linkage, but still > contributors are expected to use both. What I heard was that, due to time constraints,

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 9:18 pm, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff >> wrote: >> I for one don't understand why one would carry around all that baggage >> anyhow. Why not leave the old Trac as is and start fresh with a simple, >> reduced issue tracker >

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > I for one don't understand why one would carry around all that baggage > anyhow. Why not leave the old Trac as is and start fresh with a simple, > reduced issue tracker > When the simple reduced tracker is, as already said, too simple. It

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Chris Jones wrote: On 8 Oct 2016, at 11:29 am, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:12 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 2016-10-9 06:10 , Marcel Bischoff wrote: On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: I see where you're coming from. However, your approach is contrary to how the majority of issues are handled on services like GitHub. If the ticket is too old, stal

Epiphany requires gnupg and does not accept gnupg21?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, while trying to upgrade my gimp2 port today, I stumbled upon epiphany throwing this error: > sudo port install epiphany ---> Computing dependencies for > epiphany Error: Unable to execute port: Can't install gnupg > because conflicting por

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: Requests for new ports could still be valid after years. This list could be helpful for newcomers that want to create new ports. Totally agree - but I'd close everything

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 11:29 am, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Christopher Jones >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:12 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Velázquez > wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM,

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

> On 08 ott 2016, at 15:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > I suppose it's possible someone managed to install it in a secondary > non-standard prefix, if they also had the dependencies installed in the > standard prefix. Yeah, that is indeed possible. I commited r153706 with a fixed patch and revbum

Re: CMake issue: binary (needed during build) links againts /opt/local/lib/foo.dylib

On 8 October 2016 at 12:09, Clemens Lang wrote: > - On 4 Oct, 2016, at 00:51, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >>-DCMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH_USE_LINK_PATH=FALSE > > I think this flag only affects installation (i.e. what happens on > make install), so you may want to check its effect once you have the > de

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > > On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> Requests for new ports could still be valid after years. This list could be helpful for newcomers that want to create new ports. >>> >>> Totally agree - but I'd close everything over si

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

> On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Aljaž Srebrnič wrote: > >> On 08 ott 2016, at 11:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> /opt/local should not be hardcoded. > > Of course. Should I revbump it just to be sure? It wouldn’t build in a > non-standard prefix anyway. I suppose it's possible someone managed t

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 8, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Davide Liessi wrote: > > Il sabato 8 ottobre 2016, Ryan Schmidt ha scritto: >> in future, they will instead open a GitHub pull request and paste a link to >> the pull request into the ticket (or paste a link to the Trac ticket into >> the pull request; I'm not sure

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

> On 08 ott 2016, at 11:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > /opt/local should not be hardcoded. Of course. Should I revbump it just to be sure? It wouldn’t build in a non-standard prefix anyway. -- Aljaž Srebrnič a.k.a g5pw My public key: https://g5pw.me/key Key fingerprint = 2109 8131 60CA 01AF 75EC

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 8, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > It seems counterproductive to me to close a ticket if you're not addressing > the issue. Just because nobody has done anything with a ticket for 6 months > or 2 years or whatever period of time doesn't necessarily mean that the issue > is no lo

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: Requests for new ports could still be valid after years. This list could be helpful for newcomers that want to create new ports. Totally agree - but I'd close everything over six months old or something like that for optics. People can still search to "close

Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

Il sabato 8 ottobre 2016, Ryan Schmidt > ha scritto: > > in future, they will instead open a GitHub pull request and paste a link > to the pull request into the ticket (or paste a link to the Trac ticket > into the pull request; I'm not sure if we've decided that detail yet). > I think the ideal w

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: >> >> On 2016-10-07 20:58, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones > wrot

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > > On 16/10/07, Brandon Allbery wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> >>> the cool kids also aren't writing 'tcl' these days ... >> >> >> ...but the way they write anything else, they might as well be writing

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> > >> Requests for new ports could still be valid after years. This list could >> be helpful for newcomers that want to create new ports. > > Totally agree - but I'd close everything over six months old or something > like that for optics. People can still search to "closed" tickets if they

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Christopher Jones > wrote: > > >> On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:12 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: Currently, once they find out about svn, and t

Re: CMake issue: binary (needed during build) links againts /opt/local/lib/foo.dylib

Hi Mojca, - On 4 Oct, 2016, at 00:51, Mojca Miklavec mo...@macports.org wrote: >-DCMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH_USE_LINK_PATH=FALSE I think this flag only affects installation (i.e. what happens on make install), so you may want to check its effect once you have the destroot phase working. > The

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

> On Oct 8, 2016, at 3:34 AM, g...@macports.org wrote: > > Revision > 153697 > Author > g...@macports.org > Date > 2016-10-08 01:34:05 -0700 (Sat, 08 Oct 2016) > Log Message > > Fix QT4 detection, remove maintainer > > Remove maintainer as per his request > ( > https://lists.macosforge.org/pipe

Re: Bacula Ticket 49203

> On 07 ott 2016, at 15:31, Oschwald Robert wrote: > > Hi all, > > 6 months ago, I supplied patches to fix > https://trac.macports.org/ticket/49203 > . > None of the committers applied the fixes, therefore may someone please apply > them? > > Also, ple

Re: [153663] trunk/dports/kde/kmymoney4-devel/Portfile

> On Oct 6, 2016, at 8:52 PM, m...@macports.org wrote: > > Revision > 153663 > Author > m...@macports.org > Date > 2016-10-06 18:52:09 -0700 (Thu, 06 Oct 2016) > Log Message > > kmymoney4-devel: increase version suffix, as that seems to be needed for the > port to pick up the previously added p

Re: Working with Git

2016-10-08 3:32 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Velázquez : > I think this would be fine, since only a few people are likely to fetch a > pull request branch, and anyone who does just has to be aware that the branch > can be force-updated at any time. I was about to write the same. I would also like to prop