Re: something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

> Am 13.01.2018 um 18:43 schrieb Joshua Root : > > The page is being served as application/xhtml+xml but it was converted > to HTML5. What’s wrong with it? That’s not per se faulty or forbidden – au contrair: application/xhtml+xml is the per HTML5 specification officially recommended mimetype

Re: something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

On 2018-01-13 18:51, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2018-1-14 04:43 , Joshua Root wrote: >> The page is being served as application/xhtml+xml but it was converted >> to HTML5. > > > should fix it. Please push to th

Re: something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

On 2018-1-14 04:43 , Joshua Root wrote: > The page is being served as application/xhtml+xml but it was converted > to HTML5. should fix it. Please push to the live website. - Josh

Re: something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

The page is being served as application/xhtml+xml but it was converted to HTML5. - Josh On 2018-1-14 04:16 , Michael wrote: > An XML file dump: > >  This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated > with it. The document tree is shown below.  > > > > window["_gaUserPref

Re: something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

An XML file dump: This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below. window["_gaUserPrefs"] = { ioo : function() { return true; } } The MacPorts Project -- Home ... On 2018-01-13, at 9:13 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > > On 13 J

Re: something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

On 13 January 2018 at 09:04, Ken Cunningham wrote: > hacked? misconfigures? > What are you seeing? -- Eitan Adler

something is wrong with www.macports.org webpage

hacked? misconfigures?

Re: Redistributable binaries for 10.5 or 10.6 from C++11 sources

I know it can be done. TenFourFox does it. It builds with Macports infrastructure, required parts to support c++11 are moved into the application bundle, and there are scripts that appear to update the install names as you describe. There is a description in the "building tenfourfox" page.

Re: Allowing PortGroups to bump port revision

On 2018-1-14 02:19 , Clemens Lang wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:01:34AM +1100, Joshua Root wrote: >> portindex isn't slow, mportopen is. You have to evaluate the changed >> Portfiles before you can extract their info. > > I haven't measures this, but I assume the majority of time in

Re: Allowing PortGroups to bump port revision

Hi, On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:01:34AM +1100, Joshua Root wrote: > portindex isn't slow, mportopen is. You have to evaluate the changed > Portfiles before you can extract their info. I haven't measures this, but I assume the majority of time in mportopen is spent by the sub-interpreter loading th

Re: Allowing PortGroups to bump port revision

On Sunday January 14 2018 00:01:34 Joshua Root wrote: >portindex isn't slow, mportopen is. You have to evaluate the changed >Portfiles before you can extract their info. I didn't think disk I/O could be the limiting factor here. (It must be though during git pulls of the ports tree, judging from

Re: Allowing PortGroups to bump port revision

On 2018-1-13 21:14 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Of course this argument begs the question if the portindex command couldn't > be made faster, e.g. by porting it to a proper compiled language? No one ever > wrote the equivalent of cython or pyrex for Tcl? portindex isn't slow, mportopen is. You ha

Re: Allowing PortGroups to bump port revision

On Jan 13, 2018, at 04:14, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Of course this argument begs the question if the portindex command couldn't > be made faster, e.g. by porting it to a proper compiled language? No one ever > wrote the equivalent of cython or pyrex for Tcl? Lots of parts of MacPorts are comp

Re: GSoC 2018 Application

Hi On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Jackson Isaac wrote: > > > I have registered MacPorts for participating in GSoC this year and > submitted > > the initial version of the application from MacPorts side on GSoC'18 [0] > > website, in coordination with Jackson. > > Thanks for filling out the fo

Re: Allowing PortGroups to bump port revision

>My next thought was that we could add another version field for PortGroup >revision. We could use the highest value set amongst all the port's groups >when comparing versions. That still has the downside of causing problems if a >PortGroup is removed. Only if the removal causes a revision r