Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> writes: > On Apr 25, 2015, at 11:53 AM, petr wrote: >> >> On 25 Apr 2015, at 17:49, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> >>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 5:49 AM, petr wrote: >>> >>>> To my understanding the +clang3{0,1,2} refer to clang-3.{0,1,2} >>>> respectively. >>> >>> Yup. >>> >>>> These clang ports are no obsolete. >>> >>> Yup. >>> >>>> However, there are still quite some ports around with these variants, so I >>>> guess these clang3{0,1,2} variants (and maybe others) should be removed? >>> >>> Yup. >> >> Okay, >> anything else which should be considered for a "variant cleanup"? >> >> I guess the same applies to dragonegg3? < dragonegg33. I would also propose >> to remove all +gcc4? < gcc47 and all related openmpi and mpich variants. I >> am CCing Sean and Eric explicitly for their involvement in compiler >> Portgroup, openmpi or mpich, respectively. > > The clang30, clang31 and clang32 variants should be removed from any ports > where they exist because the clang-3.0, clang-3.1 and clang-3.2 ports they > depend on are already marked as being replaced by clang-3.4, so they already > cannot be installed and those variants are already broken. > > The gcc variants you mention, on the other hand, should still be working > fine, since the corresponding gcc ports still exist and should still work > fine. So I have no particular rush or inclination to do any mass removal of > these variants. Or would removing them solve some problem you're having?
Yeah, I would agree with Ryan here. I can work on updating the compilers portgroup and see where that leads. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
