> On Nov 20, 2014, at 4:22 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Nov 20, 2014, at 1:46 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> This version of the patch now in the gcc5 @5-20140824 port is the one that >>> is committed upstream, yes? I'm working on updating the port to the latest >>> version, and the patch seems to be already included, so I plan to remove >>> this patchfile when updating the port. >> >> I don't recall reporting the problem upstream, but it's possible that >> someone else did. Or maybe they've regenerated their configure scripts using >> the latest Libtool? >> >> Either way, please make sure that all the configure scripts touched by our >> patch are accounted for. GCC likes packaging other software in their >> distribution, and it would be unwise to assume that they took care of all of >> the bundled software. (Although if they did, so much the better.) > > > It looks like there are 20 patches in the patchfile, and they were all > skipped:
Someone else reported the issue upstream. I'm pleasantly surprised. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63610 vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
