I think it's time to consider a mass change of any ports that remain on the old
cxx11 1.0 PG to the new cxx11 1.1 PG.
Any thoughts?
Ken
On Feb 4, 2018, at 09:29, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> I think it's time to consider a mass change of any ports that remain on the
> old cxx11 1.0 PG to the new cxx11 1.1 PG.
>
> Any thoughts?
I haven't heard of any reports that what we're doing in the cxx11 1.1 portgroup
isn't working. So it's pr
The cxx11 portgroup is fine for C++11, but what do we want to do about C++14,
C++17, and future versions?
By providing a current clang, like 5.0, all these are covered I believe.
The PG is really misnamedshould be "modern compiler" PG or similar.
K
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> The cxx11 portgroup is fine for C++11, but what do we want to do about
On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:01, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> The cxx11 portgroup is fine for C++11, but what do we want to do about
>> C++14, C++17, and future versions?
>
> By providing a current clang, like 5.0, all these are covered I believe.
>
>
Please not more portgroups, tho.
How about we just move up that clang floor as time goes by?
K
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:01, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> The cxx1
On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:09, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:01, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
The cxx11 portgroup is fine for C++11, but what do we want to do about
C
Somewhere in the tickets Marcus has this at least 1/2 done...
K
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:09, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:01, Ken Cunningh
On 4 February 2018 at 16:09, Ken Cunningham
wrote:
> Please not more portgroups, tho.
Why not?
> How about we just move up that clang floor as time goes by?
I'd actually be in favor of more explicit dependency usage. Either
creating a new portgroup or a single generic one called
compiler_featur
On Feb 4, 2018, at 20:21, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 4 February 2018 at 16:09, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>> Please not more portgroups, tho.
>
> Why not?
They would be rather similar to one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
We should think about how this will work if and
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> We should think about how this will work if and when it is integrated into
> MacPorts base and not a portgroup. I think starting with configure.cc_std and
> configure.cxx_std might work well.
>
I’m trying to really understand your appr
On Feb 4, 2018, at 21:51, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> We should think about how this will work if and when it is integrated into
>> MacPorts base and not a portgroup. I think starting with configure.cc_std
>> and configure.cxx_std might work w
12 matches
Mail list logo