Re: Redistributable binaries for 10.5 or 10.6 from C++11 sources

[Ken Cunningham]

On 2018-01-14, at 12:33 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

> On 13 January 2018 at 18:03, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>> I know it can be done. TenFourFox does it. It builds with Macports
>> infrastructure, required parts to support c++11 are moved into the
>> application bundle, and there are scripts that appear to update the install
>> names as you describe. There is a description in the "building tenfourfox"
>> page. 
>> 
>> For 10.5+ only, all the libs could be @rpath based instead I believe.
> 
> Thanks a lot. I'll start playing with 10.6/x86_64 and see whether I
> can convince @rpath to first resolve to the default system libc++ (on
> 10.7 or later, or on computers with libc++ from MacPorts for example)
> and then to some shipped variant.
> 
> I used to build for 10.6/x86_64, 10.6/i386 & ppc on the same 64-bit
> Snow Leopard VM. Doing C++11 cross-compilations for PPC is likely to
> be mission impossible, so I'll need to find a proper PPC, but let's
> see if I can get it working natively to start with.
> 
> Thank you,
>Mojca
> 

Glad you see a path. Happy to help if I can be useful.

Re: a no-homepage homepage for ports with dead homepages

[Rainer Müller]

On 2018-01-14 12:34, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jan 12 11:12:17, rai...@macports.org wrote:
>> On 2018-01-11 22:22, Jan Stary wrote:
>>> What errors exactly will be "fixed" by that?
>>
>> It documents that the upstream homepage is gone for good. That helps to
>> understand this software is most likely a dead project.
> 
> Yes, but why set up a webpage for that?

Well, do you want to include the full text that is no on that wiki page
into base?

The wiki page also allows to update the information and instructions
without shipping new releases, which is good.

 PS : Personally, I think asking users for a new homepage, if there is one, 
 is better than just deleting the homepage variable requirement in 
 Portfiles.
>>>
>>> It might be useful to display a message when a port without a manpage is
>>> installed, saying something like you put on the page above, but shorter:
>>>
>>> $port does not have a manpage.
>>> Please let $maintainer know if you know where it is.
>>
>> This could add a lot of clutter,
> 
> So, two lines saying "this port does not have a homepage"
> is "clutter", but an extra non-homepage is not?
> How is it not the exact opposite?

I meant that printing this on installation is clutter. The link to the
NoHomepage wiki page would only be in 'port info' as usual.

>> I think the port notes should only contain information
>> relevant to its usage.
> 
> Why? No realy: why do you think the port's notes should _not_
> mention that the port does not have a homepage (yet an extra
> non-homepage should be set up to say that)?

Why should users be bothered and actively be informed that a port has no
homepage? Users will not care until they actually want to visit the
project homepage. In most cases there is nothing they or we can do about
it. Therefore I see no reason to include this in the port notes.

Rainer

Re: a no-homepage homepage for ports with dead homepages

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 12 11:12:17, rai...@macports.org wrote:
> On 2018-01-11 22:22, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On Jan 11 11:49:40, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I've been prospecting MacPorts errors reported by repology 
> >> . A 
> >> common error is that the homepage 404s out.
> >>
> >> Many of these ports still work install correctly, but have no homepage, no 
> >> homepage can seem to be found, and there is none on archive.org.
> >>
> >> Rather than just have it error out forever, I made this page in the spirit 
> >> of the gentoo page:
> >>
> >> 
> 
> I like the idea of the placeholder wiki page with a detailed explanation.
> 
> >> If that is acceptable, I'd like to use it, or some variation of it, for 
> >> ports like biggersql, for example, to fix some of these errors.
> > 
> > What errors exactly will be "fixed" by that?
> 
> It documents that the upstream homepage is gone for good. That helps to
> understand this software is most likely a dead project.

Yes, but why set up a webpage for that?

> >> PS : Personally, I think asking users for a new homepage, if there is one, 
> >> is better than just deleting the homepage variable requirement in 
> >> Portfiles.
> > 
> > It might be useful to display a message when a port without a manpage is
> > installed, saying something like you put on the page above, but shorter:
> > 
> > $port does not have a manpage.
> > Please let $maintainer know if you know where it is.
> 
> This could add a lot of clutter,

So, two lines saying "this port does not have a homepage"
is "clutter", but an extra non-homepage is not?
How is it not the exact opposite?

> for example if a port is only installed as a dependency.

What difference foes it make whether a port without a homepage
is a dependency of something or not?

> I think the port notes should only contain information
> relevant to its usage.

Why? No realy: why do you think the port's notes should _not_
mention that the port does not have a homepage (yet an extra
non-homepage should be set up to say that)?

Jan