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
