On 6 October 2016 at 14:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Oct 6, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> On 6 October 2016 at 12:06, René J.V. Bertin 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++.
It works without https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems (= setting libc++ to become your default stdlib globally). But the port in question most likely still needs libc++. Read as: if you use the cxx11 PortGroup and use a default installation of MacPorts, the port won't compile. But you can still require libc++ for this individual port and it might compile and work. Using the cxx11 PortGroup is desired/absolutely needed when a port has many dependencies that need a compatible stdlib as the app would crash otherwise. It is not needed for "standalone" apps that don't need to communicate to their dependencies via some C++ API (or when dependencies use the same stdlib, like qt5 which switched to libc++ anyway). Mojca _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev