On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Considering all the various build systems we encounter in MacPorts, from
>>> autotools to xcodebuild to cmake to scons to qmake to manually crafted
>>> Makefiles, my impression is that autotools sucks the least.
>>
>> I guess we can just dis
On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> We've got it building, the problems outstanding are one easy upstream patch
> and its tendency to fetch things during build/vendored zlib.
>
> Personally I'm not volunteering to maintain distribution patches to fix the
> fetch and zlib issues.
On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> Without reading those links, I already know autotools sucks, and from the
>> standpoint of a software developer I don't really enjoy writing autotools
>> files. However, from the standpoin
On Jul 19, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Without reading those links, I already know autotools sucks, and from the
> standpoint of a software developer I don't really enjoy writing autotools
> files. However, from the standpoint of a package maintainer, I love autotools
> for the con
On Jul 19, 2016 8:38 AM, "Daniel J. Luke" wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > This is one of the problems with projects that roll their own
nonstandard configure scripts and Makefiles -- they don't work the way
anybody unfamiliar with that project expects. Developers w
On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> This is one of the problems with projects that roll their own nonstandard
>> configure scripts and Makefiles -- they don't work the way anybody
>> unfamiliar with that project expects. Deve
On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> This is one of the problems with projects that roll their own nonstandard
> configure scripts and Makefiles -- they don't work the way anybody unfamiliar
> with that project expects. Developers would do well to adopt standard
> configure script
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 7:13 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:31 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that
>>> they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the install
>>> prefix, then don't seem to support
On Jul 19, 2016, at 7:13 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:31 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>
>> The problem is that
>> they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the install
>> prefix, then don't seem to support DESTROOT. I've gone to upstream to
>> report this, but I und
On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:31 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> I'm trying to write a portfile for ChezScheme.
Thanks!
> The problem is that
> they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the install
> prefix, then don't seem to support DESTROOT. I've gone to upstream to
> report this, but I
On 2016-7-18 02:15 , Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Joshua Root mailto:j...@macports.org>> wrote:
The second question is about names: I named the port chez-scheme.
Unfortunately the tarball they have expands into one with a
directory
name
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> The second question is about names: I named the port chez-scheme.
>> Unfortunately the tarball they have expands into one with a directory
>> named ChezScheme-9.4 and not chez-scheme-9.4 The obvious thing to do
>> is to change the name of the
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2016-7-17 16:16 , Joshua Root wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-7-17 15:31 , Watson Ladd wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I'm trying to write a portfile for ChezScheme. The problem is that
>>> they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the i
On 2016-7-17 16:16 , Joshua Root wrote:
On 2016-7-17 15:31 , Watson Ladd wrote:
Dear all,
I'm trying to write a portfile for ChezScheme. The problem is that
they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the install
prefix, then don't seem to support DESTROOT. I've gone to upstream t
On 2016-7-17 15:31 , Watson Ladd wrote:
Dear all,
I'm trying to write a portfile for ChezScheme. The problem is that
they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the install
prefix, then don't seem to support DESTROOT. I've gone to upstream to
report this, but I understand there is
Dear all,
I'm trying to write a portfile for ChezScheme. The problem is that
they want you to run configure with an argument indicating the install
prefix, then don't seem to support DESTROOT. I've gone to upstream to
report this, but I understand there is black magic we could use
instead.
The sec
16 matches
Mail list logo
