> 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

Reply via email to