The guide needs to say something (quite a lot, actually) about *-
devel ports. The only thing it currently says is:
"Non-port dependencies should only be used if the application or
library can be installed by multiple ports (for example stable and -
devel version) or if it can't be
Hello,
What is the policy about -devel ports for which their normal
counterparts have a greater or equal version?
% (port echo '*-devel' 1>&2 | sed -E 's/-devel[[:>:]]//') 2>&1 | sort
| xargs port list
Etoile @0.1.9
possible to require specific variants with some syntax.
I know, there would be a lot of base work needed for something like this
to be fully usable, but I think it would be the best solution for the
future to solve all the problems with -devel ports.
Rainer
___
ersion)
Basically, any of <, <=, =, >=, > should be possible. It could also
become possible to require specific variants with some syntax.
I know, there would be a lot of base work needed for something like
this to be fully usable, but I think it would be the best solution
for the future to solve al
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Note: MacPorts uses -devel ports for an entirely different purpose
than some other package managers (e.g. Linux? FreeBSD? not sure). In
those other package managers, a port foo-devel would contain the
headers necessary for other software to link with foo.
The
On 2008-02-04 07:52:44 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 06:51, js wrote:
>> What's happen after -devel port get officially released?
>> are they removed from svn?
>
> Some maintainers do that. I think most just leave the -devel ports
> around.
I thin
What's happen after -devel port get officially released?
are they removed from svn?
On Feb 3, 2008 9:15 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The guide needs to say something (quite a lot, actually) about *-
> devel ports. The only thing it currently says is:
>
>
On Feb 4, 2008, at 08:56, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-02-04 07:52:44 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008, at 06:51, js wrote:
What's happen after -devel port get officially released?
are they removed from svn?
Some maintainers do that. I think most just leave the -devel
On Feb 4, 2008, at 06:51, js wrote:
What's happen after -devel port get officially released?
are they removed from svn?
Some maintainers do that. I think most just leave the -devel ports
around. For example, the php5-devel port is currently at version
5.2.5RC2 while the php5 port
On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *-latest, in
> light of the above change, the name "latest" would indeed seem to be
> clearer. It would also remove any potential confusion with the RPM -
> deve
2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *-latest, in
> > light of the above change, the name "latest" would indeed seem to be
> > cleare
04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > > Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *-latest, in
> > > light of the above change, the name "latest" would indeed seem to be
> > > clearer. It would also remove any potential confusion with the RPM -
>
On 2008-02-05 13:57:30 +0100, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> Then we would have to warn new users about -latest not being so stable
> because intuitively I would like the latest version to be installed
> but what retains me the the previous one is that "it just works". For
> the sake of stability I woul
2008/2/5, js <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Feb 5, 2008 9:57 PM, Thomas de Grivel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > > > Regarding the sugges
On Feb 6, 2008, at 22:21, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
2008/2/5, js:
On Feb 5, 2008 9:57 PM, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre:
On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *-
latest, in
light of the above change
On Feb 7, 2008 1:58 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I think -devel is better.
> >> For one thing, it's more intuitive.
>
> It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest
> stable version, if the latest stable version
On 2008-02-07 14:50:03 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It happens for tin almost each time a new stable version is released
> (because it is released before new development work starts). [...]
Here I meant a new stable branch (not just a bug-fix stable version),
i.e. a new version of the form x.y.
ebian distributes a development version of zsh,
it also has zsh-beta, which more or less corresponds to the HEAD (and
can be installed in parallel).
> Some of our non-devel ports do install development versions because
> the latest releases don't work at all or are years out of date, say.
>
> > Some of our non-devel ports do install development versions because
> > the latest releases don't work at all or are years out of date, say.
> > But generally this should not be the case. If you think the latest
> > stable release of a program is not suitable,
On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
Seeing that there are 5 different postgresql port (7,
80, 81, 82, 83) makes me quite puzzled, which one is considered
stable?
Each postgres version in macports has an on-disk format that is
incompatible with the next (newer) release.
Sinc
On 2008-02-07 15:21:41 +0100, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> 2008/2/7, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest
> >stable version, if the latest stable version is newer than the latest
> >development version. If we
On Feb 7, 2008, at 07:08, js wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 1:58 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I think -devel is better.
For one thing, it's more intuitive.
It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest
stable version, if the latest stable version is newer than the latest
develo
On Feb 7, 2008, at 09:10, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-02-07 15:21:41 +0100, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
2008/2/7, Ryan Schmidt:
It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest
stable version, if the latest stable version is newer than the
latest
development version. If
On 2008-02-07 09:47:45 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>> Seeing that there are 5 different postgresql port (7,
>> 80, 81, 82, 83) makes me quite puzzled, which one is considered
>> stable?
>
> Each postgres version in macports has an on-disk form
Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest
>stable version, if the latest stable version is newer than the latest
>development version. If we act on this proposal, then "-latest" is
>more intuitive than "-devel".
03 PM, Emmanuel Hainry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Citando js :
>
> > On Feb 7, 2008 1:58 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> I think -devel is better.
> > > >> For one thing, it's more intuitive.
> > >
> > >
On 2008-02-07 22:08:57 +0900, js wrote:
> I agree with you,
> but I think that the situation that devel-ver < stable-ver is very
> rare. I've never seen it. (By newer, you means the version number is
> greater, right?)
It happens for tin almost each time a new stable version is released
(because i
On 2008-02-07 23:00:14 +0900, js wrote:
> If the developer call it as stable and the other's development,
> Let' follow it.
> Anyone who like to use newer can easily choose -devel one.
However this may be confusing for the end user, as depending on the
developers, "unstable" doesn't always mean th
Citando js :
> On Feb 7, 2008 1:58 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> I think -devel is better.
> > >> For one thing, it's more intuitive.
> >
> > It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest
> > stable
If the developer call it as stable and the other's development,
Let' follow it.
Anyone who like to use newer can easily choose -devel one.
On Feb 7, 2008 10:50 PM, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-02-07 22:08:57 +0900, js wrote:
> > I agree with you,
> > but I think that the si
2008/2/7, Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 09:10, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2008-02-07 15:21:41 +0100, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> >
> >> 2008/2/7, Ryan Schmidt:
> >>
> >>> It was proposed that -devel ports sho
devel port to the same version
> as the regular port:
>
> Etoile (0.1.9) and Etoile-devel (0.1.9)
> mpd (0.13.1) and mpd-devel (0.13.1)
There's newer boehmgc (7.1), newer php (5.2-dev and 5.3) and so on.
So if someone wants "real" devel ports, it will be.
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Then let me acquaint you with our ports tree:
...
zeroinstall-injector (0.31) is newer than zeroinstall-injector-
devel (0.30)
This port (zeroinstall-injector-devel) built from tip-of-trunk with some
experimental configuration (shared cache between users and with full
i
So, have we reached the conclusion on this?
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
the
> Portfile?
>
> (if someone likes to take a stab at the still open bug that Universal does
> not build, that would be highly appreciated; see #20952, #21530 and #22815.
> That bug is present in the wxWidget Portfiles for 2.6.4, 2.8.9, 2.9.0 and in
> the wxWidgets-devel Por
Le 7 déc. 2009 à 21:58, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
> I feel I should stop rambling at this point but I hope I've explained some of
> the issues and considerations involved, though I realize I haven't provided a
> clear answer about what should be done now, because I don't know.
Could you be more spe
That bug is present in the wxWidget Portfiles for 2.6.4, 2.8.9, 2.9.0 and in
>> the wxWidgets-devel Portfile for 2.9.0).
>
> -devel ports are for development versions of software. Non-devel ports are
> for stable versions of software. This is not documented in the guide or wiki,
[resent, I used the wrong sender address]
Hi Ryan,
Your ramblings are *much* appreciated. For one thing, it did took my
frustration away.
I had been writing the following e-mail, but some serious timing
consuming got in the way (I just became dad). I was planning to use
wxPython for some hobby p
On 2009-12-14 06:22 , Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> I fully agree that in this particular case, it is very odd that a stable
> release of wxWidgets 2.9 is out since September, while there is no
> release of wxPython that works for that version.
2.9 is not a stable release. From the wxWidgets website:
C
On 2009-12-11 03:48 , Jyrki Wahlstedt wrote:
> This
> is news to me, as when I just looked at the project site, the stable version
> is 2.8.10, 2.9.0 is still a development snapshot.
That's correct.
> I noticed that the wxWidgets fold have collected a list of hints and tips to
> build wxWidgets
40 matches
Mail list logo
