On 6 October 2016 at 12:06, 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+?

qt5 (base and some other ports) still works on 10.7 without libc++
being set globally. If one would include the cxx11 portgroup, these
ports would fail to install as well.

But it would probably help if you would use libc++ instead of libstdc++.

>> 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?

There's probably a ticket for that somewhere. If not a ticket, there
was at least a thread on the devel mailing list.

Mojca
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

Reply via email to