On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Clemens Lang wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 07:17:02PM +0200, Ren? J.V. Bertin wrote:
This just came up: is there a quick way to get the notes for the
active version of a port?
$> port notes $portname
This will use the notes from the current state of the ports tree. I
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 07:17:02PM +0200, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> This just came up: is there a quick way to get the notes for the
> active version of a port?
$> port notes $portname
This will use the notes from the current state of the ports tree. I
don't think we have a simple way to use the
Hi Sat,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:57:41PM +0700, Satryaji Aulia wrote:
> We haven't discussed whether or not the `xcodeversion` PortGroup
> should be included. We also **restrict** Xcode in tracemode if not
> needed. An exception if is CLT isn't installed.
The xcodeversion PortGroup says it
> On 16 Jul 2019, at 6:15 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday July 16 2019 15:42:49 MacPorts wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we might consider a "best approximation" so that software builds
>> at least, and works as best the OS can support. I am thinking that is (or
>
> AFAIK this is the main
Hi,
This just came up: is there a quick way to get the notes for the active version
of a port?
Thanks,
R.
On Tuesday July 16 2019 15:42:49 MacPorts wrote:
> Perhaps we might consider a "best approximation" so that software builds
> at least, and works as best the OS can support. I am thinking that is (or
AFAIK this is the main goal here. And one can cause a compiler warning to be
raised each time
To say it more explicitly:
Besides removing the messages revolving Xcode, the latest changes in
macports-base now **force** MacPorts to use CommandLineTools instead
of Xcode.app for common tools like make, clang etc. This is to make every
build reproducible and force ports to explicitly declare
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 14:32, Karan Sheth wrote:
>
> OK sorry, actually if we are just pushing Dockerfile with it's setup
> documentation then I guess, there's no need of another repo.
Yes, just Dockerfile (+ docs & tests), nothing in binary form.
> So it could be something like
> - Dockerfile
