> On Oct 6, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Mojca Miklavec <mo...@macports.org> wrote: > > 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++.
I don't understand... Those two paragraphs seem contradictory. You say it works without libc++, and that forcing libc++ would cause the ports to fail (on vanilla OS X < 10.9), but then you say it would help to use libc++. >>> 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. Yes we've discussed on the mailing list but I did not find a ticket for it. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev