> On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:11 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Friday October 07 2016 10:51:59 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
>> Not to mention the fact that literally every single C++ port would have
>> to declare a library dependency on libgcc.
>
> Or not: if a compiler selection mechanism is use
On Friday October 07 2016 10:51:59 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> Not to mention the fact that literally every single C++ port would have
> to declare a library dependency on libgcc.
Or not: if a compiler selection mechanism is used that picks a macports-gcc
version that dependency would be added i
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> On 6 October 2016 at 16:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>>
>> Ken: apologies for not having thought of this, but myself when I was still
>> running 10.6 I've had sufficient success with building C++11 code using a
>> (then) recent gcc port.
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 12:49 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>> On Thursday October 06 2016 12:32:24 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>>
>> now. At my previous job, when we ran into this we just lifted the whole
>> thing to glue multiple g++ releases to a common libstdc++ from Debian
>> (clang / libc++ wasn't
On 2016-10-06, at 9:40 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Wow ... have you also thought about my mom's old blue baby iMac G3 which
> still runs AFAIK? :D And maybe providing a newer Mach kernel for them, too?
Indeed, it's surprising to me as well sometimes just how useful these machines
still are
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:49 PM, René J.V. Bertin
wrote:
> On Thursday October 06 2016 12:32:24 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> Hasn't this become easier at all?
>
Only if you can use the GPL3 libstdc++. Since the stuff Apple ships
doesn't, we lose. Linux of course does not have this problem.
--
bran
On Thursday October 06 2016 12:32:24 Brandon Allbery wrote:
Hasn't this become easier at all?
> now. At my previous job, when we ran into this we just lifted the whole
> thing to glue multiple g++ releases to a common libstdc++ from Debian
> (clang / libc++ wasn't an issue back then).
Sounds lik
On Thursday October 06 2016 09:26:43 Ken Cunningham Webuse wrote:
> 10.4 and 10.5 users who have PPC machines worth keeping might well have to
> consider gcc cxx11options, if those systems are to have any path forward to
> newer software.
Wow ... have you also thought about my mom's old blue ba
On 2016-10-06, at 7:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On 6 October 2016 at 16:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>>
>> Ken: apologies for not having thought of this, but myself when I was still
>> running 10.6 I've had sufficient success with building C++11 code using a
>> (then) recent gcc port. It's
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:25 PM, René J.V. Bertin
wrote:
> Actually, that hasn't yet caused me any problems on Linux. I've made the
> v6 collection the default as soon as it became available, and certainly
> haven't had to rebuild anything because of it.
You haven't seen the work distribution f
On Thursday October 06 2016 16:48:44 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> This would probably mostly work fine if *all* ports were built with
> g++ (= against the same version of mp-provided stdlibc++). I can
> easily imagine problems when gcc is switched from, say, version 5 to
> version 6, but let's ignore t
On 6 October 2016 at 16:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Ken: apologies for not having thought of this, but myself when I was still
> running 10.6 I've had sufficient success with building C++11 code using a
> (then) recent gcc port. It's possible that things have evolved so much
> nowadays that
On Thursday October 06 2016 06:33:56 Ken Cunningham Webuse wrote:
> Some of the builds on these older machines can take hours and hours...
> webkit2-gtk is not even to be mentioned.
Didn't even think of that yet, but yes. The problem is of course that we *are*
indeed talking about older version
>
> The only blocking stone is meeting the agreement about how to
> name the new binary archives [and implementing that] :)
It would be nice if that discussion was finalized and a plan enacted.
Some of the builds on these older machines can take hours and hours...
webkit2-gtk is not even to be
On 6 October 2016 at 15:08, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Let's take the qt5-qtbase port as an example. It depends on the icu port. Its
> library /opt/local/libexec/qt5/lib/QtCore.framework/QtCore links with icu's
> libraries /opt/local/lib/libicui18n.55.dylib,
> /opt/local/lib/libicuuc.55.dylib, /opt
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> On 6 October 2016 at 14:43, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>>
>>> It works without https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems
>>> (= setting libc++ to become your default stdlib globally
On 6 October 2016 at 14:40, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Thursday October 06 2016 07:17:18 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I don't understand... Those two paragraphs seem contradictory. You say it
>> works without libc++, and that forcing libc++ would cause the ports to fail
>> (on vanilla OS X < 10.9),
On 6 October 2016 at 14:43, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>> It works without https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems
>> (= setting libc++ to become your default stdlib globally). But the
>> port in question most likely still needs libc++.
>
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> It works without https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems
> (= setting libc++ to become your default stdlib globally). But the
> port in question most likely still needs libc++.
>
> Read as: if you use the cxx11 PortGroup and us
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:40 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>> We want to move the matter of determining that an error condition exists
>> from the portfiles and portgroups to MacPorts base. Then it will be easier
>> for the buildbot to query MacPorts base and ask if the port will be
>> installable,
On Thursday October 06 2016 07:17:18 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I don't understand... Those two paragraphs seem contradictory. You say it
> works without libc++, and that forcing libc++ would cause the ports to fail
> (on vanilla OS X < 10.9), but then you say it would help to use libc++.
I guess th
On 6 October 2016 at 14:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> On 6 October 2016 at 12:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>>> On Thursday October 06 2016 04:35:02 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
If a port requires C++11 / libc++, include the cxx11 1.0 portgroup.
>>>
>
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:06 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Thursday October 06 2016 06:25:06 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> By including the portgroup, you are declaring that the port requires C++11.
>> Users using "vanilla" OS X versions prior to 10.9 who try to install such a
>> port will recei
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> On 6 October 2016 at 12:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> On Thursday October 06 2016 04:35:02 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> If a port requires C++11 / libc++, include the cxx11 1.0 portgroup.
>>
>> I wonder if that shouldn't simply be done by
On Thursday October 06 2016 06:25:06 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> By including the portgroup, you are declaring that the port requires C++11.
> Users using "vanilla" OS X versions prior to 10.9 who try to install such a
> port will receive an error message with a link to the wiki page explaining
> how
On 6 October 2016 at 12:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Thursday October 06 2016 04:35:02 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> If a port requires C++11 / libc++, include the cxx11 1.0 portgroup.
>
> I wonder if that shouldn't simply be done by the Qt5 PortGroup then ...
>
> I don't really follow what that po
On Oct 6, 2016, at 05:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>> On Thursday October 06 2016 04:35:02 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> If a port requires C++11 / libc++, include the cxx11 1.0 portgroup.
>
> I wonder if that shouldn't simply be done by the Qt5 PortGroup then ...
>
> I don't really follow what t
On Thursday October 06 2016 04:35:02 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> If a port requires C++11 / libc++, include the cxx11 1.0 portgroup.
I wonder if that shouldn't simply be done by the Qt5 PortGroup then ...
I don't really follow what that portgroup does. Is there a risk of breaking
anything when includ
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:56 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I got the attached build failure notifications, which in both cases I think
> can be traced to the use of `-stdlib=libstdc++` :
>
> {{{
> [ 84%] Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/dbusmenu-qt5.dir/utils.cpp.o
> cd
> /opt/local
Hi,
I got the attached build failure notifications, which in both cases I think can
be traced to the use of `-stdlib=libstdc++` :
{{{
[ 84%] Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/dbusmenu-qt5.dir/utils.cpp.o
cd
/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_bblocal_var_buildworker_ports_build_ports_devel_dbus
30 matches
Mail list logo
