Hi,
On Thursday 01 May 2014 17:04:47 meik michalke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2014, 10:16:04 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> > good. So does that mean, we don't have to depend on a particular compiler
> > version anymore?
>
> well, it looks like it. all ports we rely on seem to have fixed t
hi,
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2014, 10:16:04 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> good. So does that mean, we don't have to depend on a particular compiler
> version anymore?
well, it looks like it. all ports we rely on seem to have fixed the compiler
dependecies on their part, so the MacPorts defaults
Hi,
On Wednesday 30 April 2014 18:17:42 meik michalke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 30. April 2014, 10:01:10 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> > > move ahead to 0.6.2?
> >
> > I think the fastest (and therefore preferrable) fix will be to add the
> > relevant patch to the portfile. Patch attached (combin
hi,
Am Mittwoch, 30. April 2014, 10:01:10 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> > move ahead to 0.6.2?
>
> I think the fastest (and therefore preferrable) fix will be to add the
> relevant patch to the portfile. Patch attached (combination of r4654, r4657,
> and r4660).
thanks -- that fixed the buil
Hi!
On Tuesday 29 April 2014 20:05:19 m-...@users.sf.net wrote:
> MacPorts: the rkward-devel portfile now builds fine, but stable rkward
> (bound to rev 4635) doesn't:
[...]
> move ahead to 0.6.2?
I think the fastest (and therefore preferrable) fix will be to add the
relevant patch to the port
