Re: Compiling a port statically

On 2020-12-04 11:07 p.m., Ryan Schmidt wrote: I can't think of a reason why we would want to offer such a thing. You probably noticed some specifically asked how this would be done one question before, which is why I volunteered this. MacPorts is quite flexible for "power users". For me

Re: Compiling a port statically

On Dec 5, 2020, at 00:09, Ken Cunningham wrote: > There was a nice tweak put forth by -- I think it was Bill Cole -- to link a > port statically. I used it for bash and gmake, but the idea might work for > other ports too. > > > See >

Compiling a port statically

There was a nice tweak put forth by -- I think it was Bill Cole -- to link a port statically. I used it for bash and gmake, but the idea might work for other ports too. See for an idea

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 21:09, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > If there was a port-level view of how the buildbots are doing (maybe there is > and I haven't found it?) that might come close. There is no such feature at this time. > But from what little I figured out looking at the buildbot pages,

Re: More old upgrade issues (was: Re: Libgcc: new version won't deactivate the old version)

> On Dec 4, 2020, at 21:19, Michael wrote: > >> Error: Can't install oniguruma6 because conflicting ports are active: >> oniguruma5 >> Error: Problem while installing oniguruma6 >> Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets to report a bug. >> bash-3.2# > > What is

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 21:32, Ken Cunningham wrote: > On 2020-12-04 6:56 p.m., Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> The reason for this is that ports.macports.org only shows status for ports >> that were built directly. It does not show status for ports that were built >> indirectly > > > Hah! We should

Re: info

On 2020-12-04 6:56 p.m., Ryan Schmidt wrote: The reason for this is that ports.macports.org only shows status for ports that were built directly. It does not show status for ports that were built indirectly Hah! We should certainly prioritize that deficiency for fixing... I had no idea

Confused about build dependencies here

Ok, this seems ... odd. I didn't know about Supertux until I saw it mentioned, and figured it seemed like a good game. > bash-3.2# port install supertux > ---> Computing dependencies for supertux > The following dependencies will be installed: > boost > clang-9.0 > clang_select > cmake >

More old upgrade issues (was: Re: Libgcc: new version won't deactivate the old version)

On 2020-12-04, at 6:24 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Dec 4, 2020, at 02:58, Christopher Jones wrote: > >> That particular message can only occur if you have not updated your ports in >> a very long time, as the change that made libgcc a stub port happened >> several years ago now If you

Re: info

If there was a port-level view of how the buildbots are doing (maybe there is and I haven't found it?) that might come close. But from what little I figured out looking at the buildbot pages, it looks like something is failing in an early dependency for arm64. I do not have any arm64 (Apple

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 16:00, James Secan wrote: > I think a large number of us are very interested in the status of ports > vis-a-vis both Apple Silicon (M1) and Big Sur. Some sort of simple > red-yellow-green status board for ports that have been checked would be very > useful. Unfortunately

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

> On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:51, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:38 PM Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:26 PM Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:24, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 15:50, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > You should be able to install MacPorts and many ports. But you should > not be surprised if you hit some that will refuse to build and you may > need to wait for upstream to fix the issue (or try to fix it yourself > and submit a patch or

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:38 PM Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:26 PM Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > >> On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:24, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Timothy Allison wrote: > > I

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 09:18, Alejandro Imass wrote: > quick question: is Apple using more or less the same stack and toolchain i.e. > Mach + FBSD backbone and LLVM, etc. ? or has something very important changed > for Apple silicon? The very important thing that has changed is that Apple

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:27, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:26 PM Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:24, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Timothy Allison wrote: I have been using kmymoney on my Macs for many years now. I

Re: Compile ffmpeg static file from Macports?

On Dec 3, 2020, at 11:44, K Hindall wrote: > I have never been a coder, which is why I have Macports. > > Now I need a static ffmpeg file (to run ff·Works, thereby proving that I am > not a coder!). I know that Macports uses dynamic libraries rather than static > ones and somehow that

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:26 PM Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:24, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Timothy Allison wrote: > >> > >> I have been using kmymoney on my Macs for many years now. I stupidly > >> upgraded to Big Sur a month ago, and have

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

On Dec 4, 2020, at 20:24, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Timothy Allison wrote: >> >> I have been using kmymoney on my Macs for many years now. I stupidly >> upgraded to Big Sur a month ago, and have been paying the price with >> kmymoney4 for about a month. >> Now

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Timothy Allison wrote: > > I have been using kmymoney on my Macs for many years now. I stupidly > upgraded to Big Sur a month ago, and have been paying the price with > kmymoney4 for about a month. > Now that qt4 installs, kmymoney4 fails because gwenhywfar4

Re: Libgcc: new version won't deactivate the old version

On Dec 4, 2020, at 02:58, Christopher Jones wrote: > On 4 Dec 2020, at 2:36 am, Michael wrote: > >>> ---> Computing dependencies for libgcc >>> The following dependencies will be installed: libgcc10 >>> Continue? [Y/n]: y >>> ---> Activating libgcc10 @10.2.0_3 >>> Error: Failed to activate

Re: Removing all non-requested ports?

On Dec 4, 2020, at 08:58, Jonathan Stickel wrote: > I'm not sure why `reclaim` doesn't provide such an option. Because nobody has contributed the code to implement it. https://trac.macports.org/ticket/60754

Re: Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

On Dec 4, 2020, at 19:52, Timothy Allison wrote: > I have been using kmymoney on my Macs for many years now. I stupidly > upgraded to Big Sur a month ago, and have been paying the price with > kmymoney4 for about a month. > Now that qt4 installs, kmymoney4 fails because gwenhywfar4 fails

Re: supertux on Apple Silicon -- tester please

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:03 PM Ken Cunningham wrote: > > I was pleasantly surprised to see that “supertux” built through on arm64 > without error. Ooh, +1. Supertux is one of my favorites. The developers did an amazing job with it. Jeff

Cannot install kmymoney4 due to gwenhywfar4 failure on Big Sur

I have been using kmymoney on my Macs for many years now. I stupidly upgraded to Big Sur a month ago, and have been paying the price with kmymoney4 for about a month. Now that qt4 installs, kmymoney4 fails because gwenhywfar4 fails to build. The log file contains 3 errors: :info:build

Re: info

> Some sort of simple red-yellow-green status board for ports that have been > checked would be very useful. You are in luck! Go here and enter your favourite port. eg: by the way, a “grey” box means untested as

Re: info

I think a large number of us are very interested in the status of ports vis-a-vis both Apple Silicon (M1) and Big Sur. Some sort of simple red-yellow-green status board for ports that have been checked would be very useful. Verified support for the MacPorts codes I use regularly is a major

Re: info

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 16:27, Giovanni Cantele wrote: > > Dear All,. > > I’m searching the web but I cannot find any response to the following > question: > > is there any ongoing project for porting the whole macports staff on the new > Apple silicon architecture? There is no "special ongoing

supertux on Apple Silicon -- tester please

I was pleasantly surprised to see that “supertux” built through on arm64 without error. that’s a fairly complicated port that exercises MacPorts’ quite aggressively. Out of interest, and before I tell upstream about it, would anyone have a moment to install it on Apple Silicon and tell me if

Re: info

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:01 AM Artem Loenko via macports-users < macports-users@lists.macports.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I am in the same boat (and have switched from HomeBrew to MacPorts a few > weeks ago, so, maybe I am wrong). > > MacPorts as a tool works just fine on Macs with Apple Silicon,

Re: Removing all non-requested ports?

On 12/4/20 05:00, macports-users-requ...@lists.macports.org wrote: Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:30:11 + From: Christopher Jones To: Michael Cc: macports-users Subject: Re: Removing all non-requested ports? sudo port uninstall leaves sometimes you need to run it more than once to pick

Re: Libgcc: new version won't deactivate the old version

> On 4 Dec 2020, at 2:36 am, Michael wrote: > >> ---> Computing dependencies for libgcc >> The following dependencies will be installed: libgcc10 >> Continue? [Y/n]: y >> ---> Activating libgcc10 @10.2.0_3 >> Error: Failed to activate libgcc10: Image error: >>