On Thursday October 06 2016 06:25:06 Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> 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++. 

Right. I always forget which version got libc++ by default (I skipped 10.7 and 
10.8 myself so never had to deal with the situation).

>  This is an extremely invasive procedure for users so (obviously!) do not 
> include the portgroup in ports that do not require C++11. 

Agreed. Sadly it isn't always trivial to figure out which code really needs it, 
other than waiting for errors like the one I received.

> We would have to write the code to do that. We have not yet done so.

How do the bots decide not to build ports for which licensing makes binary 
redistribution "impossible"? Is that also handled by raising an error?

> 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. 

Something that doesn't involve raising an error you mean?
Although, the easiest way to implement this would probably be through a 
predefined error return code which could then be handled differently on user 
systems and on the build bots.


macports-dev mailing list

Reply via email to