Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On 10/10/16 6:52 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Oct 10, 2016, at 15:23, Johannes Kastl wrote: >> >>> On 10.10.16 22:20 David Evans wrote: >>> >>> Yesterday. r153733 removed the run time dependency on epiphany from gimp2. >>> Perhaps you need to update your ports? >>> >>> sudo port selfupdate >> >> I

[GSoC] Announcing Google Summer of Code 2017 and Google Code-in 2016

GSoC 2017 is announced! Please add or refines ideas on the MacPorts wiki; anyone interested in mentoring is encouraged to contact those of us regularly involved with the program (the likely administrators): * s...@macports.org (myself) * c...@macports.org (Clemens) * rai...@macports.org (Rainer

Re: Documentation overhaul

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > > On 2016-10-10 01:23, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> Thanks for your interest, Marcel, but do you feel you would be able >> to lead such an effort, since you seem to be new to MacPorts? I've >> been with MacPorts for around 10 years and have thought

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On Oct 10, 2016, at 15:23, Johannes Kastl wrote: > >> On 10.10.16 22:20 David Evans wrote: >> >> Yesterday. r153733 removed the run time dependency on epiphany from gimp2. >> Perhaps you need to update your ports? >> >> sudo port selfupdate > > I did, but maybe I got a stale mirror. Anyway, I'

Re: Documentation overhaul

Hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 09:44:17PM +0200, Rainer Müller wrote: > Now here is Marcel offering his help with the documentation. I do not > want to turn down his offer or stop him from contributing in any way. > > [...] > > If Marcel has time right now, I think he should just start with the > do

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On 10/10/16 1:23 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote: > On 10.10.16 22:20 David Evans wrote: > >> Yesterday. r153733 removed the run time dependency on epiphany from gimp2. >> Perhaps you need to update your ports? >> >> sudo port selfupdate > > I did, but maybe I got a stale mirror. Anyway, I'll try again.

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On 10.10.16 22:20 David Evans wrote: > Yesterday. r153733 removed the run time dependency on epiphany from gimp2. > Perhaps you need to update your ports? > > sudo port selfupdate I did, but maybe I got a stale mirror. Anyway, I'll try again. > Yes, this is over kill but it makes sure that you

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On 10/10/16 12:58 PM, Johannes Kastl wrote: > On 10.10.16 21:51 David Evans wrote: > >> Because gcr requires +x11 and you had gtk3 +quartz installed for >> gimp2 +quartz > > I figured this much. But why was it suddenly listed as a dependency > for gimp2+quartz? > >> Why? gcr is a dependency of

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On 10/10/16 10:58 AM, Johannes Kastl wrote: > On 09.10.16 10:24 Johannes Kastl wrote: > >>> ---> Computing dependencies for gcr ---> Fetching archive >>> for gcr Error: org.macports.archivefetch for port gcr returned: >>> gtk3 must be installed with +x11. > > I still get the same error, so I gu

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10.10.16 21:51 David Evans wrote: > Because gcr requires +x11 and you had gtk3 +quartz installed for > gimp2 +quartz I figured this much. But why was it suddenly listed as a dependency for gimp2+quartz? > Why? gcr is a dependency of epiphany but

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

On 10/9/16 1:24 AM, Johannes Kastl wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks for the help. > > On 09.10.16 07:50 David Evans wrote: > >> I've confirmed that gcr's dependency on gnupg is unnecessary -- >> works fine without it. Removed in r153722. Let me know if you >> have any further problems upgrading gi

Re: Documentation overhaul

On 2016-10-10 01:23, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > Thanks for your interest, Marcel, but do you feel you would be able > to lead such an effort, since you seem to be new to MacPorts? I've > been with MacPorts for around 10 years and have thought of rewriting > the documentation for several years so I feel

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10.10.16 19:58 Johannes Kastl wrote: > Is there a way to get gimp2+quartz to build without having to > install all of x11? I had to install pango, cairo and gdk-pixbuf2 with +x11. Then I could install "gtk3 +x11 -quartz" and gcr without errors. g

Ticket review request

MacPorts Committers, Please review/test/commit https://trac.macports.org/ticket/47941. Thanks, Sterling PS Looking forward to GitHub Pull Requests... ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/l

Re: gcr requires gtk to be installed with +x11

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09.10.16 10:24 Johannes Kastl wrote: >> ---> Computing dependencies for gcr ---> Fetching archive >> for gcr Error: org.macports.archivefetch for port gcr returned: >> gtk3 must be installed with +x11. I still get the same error, so I guess it h

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

On 2016-10-11 03:05 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: Is there a good reason why action_provides (in port) does a `file normalize`? ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosfor

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

On Monday October 10 2016 18:05:19 René J.V. Bertin wrote: >Is there a good reason why action_provides (in port) does a `file normalize`? Actually, doing that must make it impossible to trace which port installs a given symlink. While it can be interesting to know to whom the target belongs, th

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

On 2016-10-10 18:05, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Is there a good reason why action_provides (in port) does a `file normalize`? > Wouldn't it be just as OK if the actual registry lookup (after doing all > checks) used the original $filename? file normalize is used to support relative paths and path

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

On Monday October 10 2016 17:29:18 Clemens Lang wrote: > > In fact, in absence of proof that my use of a symlinked $prefix explains > > everything I won't assume that that is the culprit. > > Well, let me lawyer you with your own mail from 2014 then: > https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/mac

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

On 2016-10-10 16:49, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Monday October 10 2016 15:30:57 Clemens Lang wrote: >> IIRC the problem was that your installation mangled paths somehow, either by >> making /opt/local a symlink or some other uncommon configuration. > > Yes (/opt/local is a symlink), but from wha

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

Hi, - On 10 Oct, 2016, at 16:49, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: > Either way, this shouldn't have any incidence on file-to-port lookups. > Either: > - /opt/local/foo/bar is registered as such and a look-up of that path succeeds > - /opt/local/foo/bar is actually /what/ever/foo/ba

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

On Monday October 10 2016 15:30:57 Clemens Lang wrote: Hi, > IIRC the problem was that your installation mangled paths somehow, either by > making /opt/local a symlink or some other uncommon configuration. Yes (/opt/local is a symlink), but from what I read on here that is not *that* uncommon a

Re: reasons for `port provides` not working?

Hi, - On 10 Oct, 2016, at 15:11, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: > I've been bitten once too often by an oversight that I c/should have seen if > `port provides` worked. It's not been working for me for a long time, and > mostly I don't really miss it, but now I'd like to figure o

reasons for `port provides` not working?

Hi, I've been bitten once too often by an oversight that I c/should have seen if `port provides` worked. It's not been working for me for a long time, and mostly I don't really miss it, but now I'd like to figure out if there's a way to get this feature online again. Without reinstalling from

Re: 2nd MacPorts Meeting & Online Meeting

> On 10 ott 2016, at 07:53, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > Hi, > > Me and Aljaž would be willing to host the MacPorts meeting in 2017 again. > > If you have any particular requests about the desired time / place / > or anything else, we can discuss it before we fix the dates, but we > should probabl