> On 27 Sep 2019, at 12:39 am, Chris Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> On 27 Sep 2019, at 12:34 am, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> On Sep 26, 2019, at 18:28, Riccardo Mottola wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>>>> I suppose this is an important fix for 10.5 user, we soon need a 2.6.1 >>>> The list of compiler dependencies is kept in 2 places: in the ports tree, >>>> and also in MacPorts base. Chris updated both to fix this issue. The list >>>> in MacPorts base only comes into effect if the user doesn't have a ports >>>> tree yet, so yes, this change will make it into 2.6.1, but no, there's no >>>> urgent need to release 2.6.1 just for this. >>> >>> But first I did a "port selfupdate" and the problem persisted, then I >>> patched the file inside port... and it worked. Fromt his I gathered that a >>> release is needed... >> >> It takes about an hour for the change to sync from our GitHub repository to >> our public rsync server. You presumably selfupdated before the change had >> propagated. > > The change in base though really should not be being used I would think. The > logic there is only used if the file port1.0/compilers/gcc_dependencies.tcl > in the ports tree is missing. Surely by now everyone has this, so I would > have assumed the logic in base is now really not used (I almost did not > bother to make the change there because of this). > > Because of this, its not at all clear to me what hack Riccardo could have > done to make things work...
Unless i mis understood what file was hacked, and in fact it was the one in the ports tree and not base, as I thought was indicated. That then would make sense... > >> >>
