On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 06:55:25PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I don't know but it seems useful in the following scenario: […]
>
> I agree there's a use-case for this behavior, but I can just aswell
> provide a use-case that is broken by this
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 06:55:25PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I don't know but it seems useful in the following scenario: […]
I agree there's a use-case for this behavior, but I can just aswell
provide a use-case that is broken by this behavior:
- (Work on an upgrade for port foo)
- (Test this
On Aug 13, 2013, at 18:37, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:01:53PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> You've run into a peculiar feature of MacPorts. You have 3.10.2_1
>> installed, MacPorts knows there's a newer version 3.10.2_2 available
>> so it shows it to you in "port outdated", b
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:01:53PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> You've run into a peculiar feature of MacPorts. You have 3.10.2_1
> installed, MacPorts knows there's a newer version 3.10.2_2 available
> so it shows it to you in "port outdated", but MacPorts thinks there's
> nothing to upgrade becau
On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 15:56, Terry Barnum wrote:
>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 15:00, Terry Barnum wrote:
>>>
I think I may have screwed something up when activating and deactivating
On Aug 13, 2013, at 15:56, Terry Barnum wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 15:00, Terry Barnum wrote:
>>
>>> I think I may have screwed something up when activating and deactivating
>>> two variants of a port. On a test machine, after running sudo
On Aug 13, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 15:00, Terry Barnum wrote:
>
>> I think I may have screwed something up when activating and deactivating two
>> variants of a port. On a test machine, after running sudo port -v
>> selfupdate, I installed a second instance
On Aug 13, 2013, at 14:34, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> I'm trying to install the "highlight" port. But the build stage does not
> complete:
I believe this bug was already reported:
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/39932
I assume this old version of highlight is incompatible with the new version of
On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:27, M A wrote:
> dyld: Library not loaded: /opt/local/lib/libffi.5.dylib
> Referenced from: /opt/local/libexec/llvm-3.2/bin/llvm-config
> Reason: image not found
So the problem seems to be that llvm-3.2 uses libffi, and on your system is
linked with libffi library ver
On Aug 13, 2013, at 15:00, Terry Barnum wrote:
> I think I may have screwed something up when activating and deactivating two
> variants of a port. On a test machine, after running sudo port -v selfupdate,
> I installed a second instance of a port with a debug variant (dspam +mysql5
> +debug)
I think I may have screwed something up when activating and deactivating two
variants of a port. On a test machine, after running sudo port -v selfupdate, I
installed a second instance of a port with a debug variant (dspam +mysql5
+debug) and it properly installed it at the latest version at 3.1
Hi, all.
I'm trying to install the "highlight" port. But the build stage does not
complete:
[]
/usr/bin/clang++ -Wall -O2 -DNDEBUG -c -I ./include/ -I/usr/include/lua5.1
-fno-strict-aliasing ./core/Diluculum/LuaValue.cpp
/usr/bin/clang++ -Wall -O2 -DNDEBUG -c -I ./include/ -I/usr/include/lu
While trying to upgrade gcc47 (from 4.7.2 to 4.7.3) I ran into a problem
when port was trying to install ld64. (Error message below.) In particular
it could not find the file "llvm-c/lto.h", even though I was able to
confirm it existed in /opt/local/libexec/llvm-3.2/include/llvm-c/lto.h.
Looking at
13 matches
Mail list logo
