On Nov 12, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Michael David Crawford wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Michael David Crawford wrote:
>>
>>> There have been plenty of times that the only Mac available to me for
>>> development has been my mother's
On Nov 12, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Michael David Crawford wrote:
> There have been plenty of times that the only Mac available to me for
> development has been my mother's Tiger G4 iMac. I was at least able
> to install a PowerPC backport of Firefox.
>
> What was most upsetting to me when I used it w
On Nov 12, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Another option: It should be possible to write code to detect whether any
>> files in a destroot use a C++ library, and if so, MacPorts could include the
>> C++ library name in the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Another option: It should be possible to write code to detect whether any
> files in a destroot use a C++ library, and if so, MacPorts could include the
> C++ library name in the archive filename, otherwise don't. At archive fetch
> time,
On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:19 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>> If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk, prefix,
>>> applications_dir, frameworks_dir, ... we'll sooner or later end up in
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:39 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Having all of a port's packages -- for all platforms, variants and build
>> options -- in a single directory is nice though because it's a single
>> directory listing to look at to f
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of only adding a non-default cxxstdlib to the filename,
>> since that would allow all the existing archives to continue to be valid.
>> However if we were to switch to
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>> On 2015-11-11 12:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>>
On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> If we start including macosx_deploymen
On 2015-11-12 21:19 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>> If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk, prefix,
>>> applications_dir, frameworks_dir, ... we'll sooner or later end up in
>>> an e
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> I assume that
>> should be easy enough to add.
>
> It would be easy enough to do, once we reach a decision on what,
> specifically, to do.
So I suggest we finish this discussion and mee
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk, prefix,
>> applications_dir, frameworks_dir, ... we'll sooner or later end up in
>> an exponential mess
>
> These are the type of settings
On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I would imagine that most users who bought a Mac want to run Mac OS, not any
> other OS.
yes, and it's unfortunate that Apple doesn't have a clearly published policy of
how long they continue to support OS releases (and that they don't continu
On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I suspect there will be more than you would probably like. :) I realize
>> older systems don't get updates from Apple anymore. That makes it even more
>> important that they should continue t
On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I suspect there will be more than you would probably like. :) I realize older
> systems don't get updates from Apple anymore. That makes it even more
> important that they should continue to get updates from MacPorts, doesn't it?
No, it makes
On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I think the order of operations would be:
>>
>> - Figure out a way to have libstdc++ and libc++ archives coexist on the
>> packages server by either modifying the archive filename or by setti
On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I think the order of operations would be:
>
> - Figure out a way to have libstdc++ and libc++ archives coexist on the
> packages server by either modifying the archive filename or by setting up a
> second packages server (or subdirectory of the
On Nov 11, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>> Having all of a port's packages -- for all platforms, variants and
>> build options -- in a single directory is nice though because it's a
>> single directory listing to look at to figure out if a particular
>> binary exists. I use this all the
On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:25 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 14:18, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> You usually do not want to fetch archives for
>>> anything else than the current OS,
>>
>> Of course we would not want that.
>>
>>> so it is implicit.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by this.
>
>
On 2015-11-11 14:18, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> You usually do not want to fetch archives for
>> anything else than the current OS,
>
> Of course we would not want that.
>
>> so it is implicit.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this.
I meant there are no settings in archive_sites.tcl or
archive_sit
On Nov 11, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>
> On 2015-11-11 12:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk,
prefix, applications_dir,
On 2015-11-11 12:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>> If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk,
>>> prefix, applications_dir, frameworks_dir, ... we'll sooner or
>>> later end up in an e
On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk, prefix,
>> applications_dir, frameworks_dir, ... we'll sooner or later end up in
>> an exponential mess
>
> These are the type of settings
On Nov 10, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> But cxxstdlib is one of the most important variable that would be a
> prerequisite for allowing modern sofware to be built on older systems.
> I believe it would be worth adding it (even if we won't ever manage to
> get new buildslaves added to
On 2015-11-11 01:26 , Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I think interest in PowerPC systems is truly very low at this time.
>
> These machines no longer run a version of Mac OS X that receives security
> updates from Apple - and don’t run one of the 2 ma
On 2015-11-11 00:26 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> If we start including macosx_deployment_target, macosx_sdk, prefix,
> applications_dir, frameworks_dir, ... we'll sooner or later end up in
> an exponential mess
These are the type of settings that are associated with an entire source
in archive_sites.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> You could presumably edit archive_sites.tcl to add another packages server
>> IP address.
>
> or just modify $prefix/etc/archive_sites.conf
>
> see also https://trac.macports.org/wiki/howto
On Nov 10, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> You could presumably edit archive_sites.tcl to add another packages server IP
> address.
or just modify $prefix/etc/archive_sites.conf
see also https://trac.macports.org/wiki/howto/ShareArchives2
> I think interest in PowerPC systems is truly
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2015, at 4:31 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 2:34 AM, Artur Szostak wrote:
>>>
Let me ask another question: Is there a seamless way to add bu
On Nov 10, 2015, at 4:31 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 2:34 AM, Artur Szostak wrote:
>>
>>> Let me ask another question: Is there a seamless way to add building and
>>> mirroring services from 3rd parties for the
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 2:34 AM, Artur Szostak wrote:
>
>> Let me ask another question: Is there a seamless way to add building and
>> mirroring services from 3rd parties for the pre-built binaries?
>
> No. We want verified binaries built in a
30 matches
Mail list logo
