On Oct 6, 2016, at 05:06, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thursday October 06 2016 04:35:02 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> If a port requires C++11 / libc++, include the cxx11 1.0 portgroup. > > I wonder if that shouldn't simply be done by the Qt5 PortGroup then ... > > I don't really follow what that portgroup does. Is there a risk of breaking > anything when including it de-facto on 10.7+?
By including the portgroup, you are declaring that the port requires C++11. Users using "vanilla" OS X versions prior to 10.9 who try to install such a port will receive an error message with a link to the wiki page explaining how to reconfigure their systems for libc++. (The buildbot workers, being nothing more than users who install ports, will receive the same error.) This is an extremely invasive procedure for users so (obviously!) do not include the portgroup in ports that do not require C++11. >> Until we figure out how to prevent it, you'll still receive failure >> notifications from non-libc++ buildbot workers about that. > > Surely there must be a way to tell the bots not to bother trying to build a > given port, which would (or could) trickle upwards to all dependencies that > require the port installed for building? We would have to write the code to do that. We have not yet done so. Ideally, this would involve changes to MacPorts base so that a port could indicate what systems it can or cannot install on. MacPorts base doesn't yet have that capability. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev