On Wednesday March 28 2018 09:00:52 Ken Cunningham wrote: Thanks for picking this up,
> I'd just like to mention that I've been working on this on my own for a while > now, and have such trees in place, and available for contributions. Anyone > interested, feel free to suggest or contribute, please. How much extra work would you say this represents, assuming you only do the minimal corrective maintenance once ports get "frozen"? Also, what's the exact approach? Do users of, say, 10.8 only specify the 10.8 overlay tree before the usual ports tree, or do they specify the whole series (say, 10.8 - 10.7 - 10.6)? The latter approach would dispense you of having to copy all those ports requiring C++11 in all overlays (but more could go wrong on user machines?) R.
