> On 5 Jun 2018, at 5:42 pm, Dave Horsfall <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> Here is the bug report corresponding to that problem:
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/56511
> 
> Ooh - a utility called "sw_vers"!  I wonder what other hidden gems are 
> lurking, essentially undocumented, on one of Apple's finest products?
> 
> After over 40 years of Unix programming, this Mac never ceases to astonish 
> me...  No, I'm not being sarcastic (for once).
> 
> Anyway...
> 
>> gcc4x is not compatible with Xcode 9.2. It may not be compatible with any 
>> Xcode 9.x. Use gcc5 or later if possible. We don't plan to backport the 
>> fixes to make gcc4x compatible with newer Xcode.
> 
> And, err, how do I achieve that?  I have this odd expectation that MacPorts 
> "just works" i.e. the dependencies have been taken care of for me.

What port are you installing/updating that requires gcc49 ? I.e. in your first 
message what was printed prior to

--->  Building gcc49
Error: Failed to build gcc49: command execution failed

??

Its possible you have a port installed using a gcc49 variant, and when you 
update this choice is maintained, even if the default has switched to a newer 
gcc. In these cases you need to manually remove the port and reinstall it with 
the newer defaults. What does

 > port installed | grep gcc

give you ?

Chris

> 
> Speaking of Xcode, I keep being offered to upgrade it, but it will only run 
> on High Sierra.  The first time I tried that, I got a message about something 
> being incompatible with this box which I couldn't write down fast enough 
> before it reverted to Sierra.  The next time I tried (paying more attention 
> this time), it bombed out because a critical file was missing...  I suppose 
> I'd better start putting money aside from my old age pension (yes, I'm a 
> pensioner) to buy an Air or something.
> 
> -- Dave, the iconoclast

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to