Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread Michael
On 2016-04-26, at 7:47 AM, Geoffrey Odhner wrote: > I wish what you say were true, but Time Machine eventually can get to a point > where it requires you to delete everything or start a new backup volume. > This can happen when its size is considerably larger than the

Re: Default linker changed when installing GCC 5.3.0 on Tiger

2016-04-26 Thread César
El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt escribió: > > On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:11 PM, César wrote: > > > El martes, 26 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt escribió: > > > >> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote: > >> > >> > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I

Re: Default linker changed when installing GCC 5.3.0 on Tiger

2016-04-26 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:11 PM, César wrote: > El martes, 26 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt escribió: > >> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote: >> >> > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from >> > the command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I

Re: Default linker changed when installing GCC 5.3.0 on Tiger

2016-04-26 Thread César
El martes, 26 de abril de 2016, Ryan Schmidt escribió: > > On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote: > > > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from > the command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I realize that > GCC 5.3.0 may

Re: Default linker changed when installing GCC 5.3.0 on Tiger

2016-04-26 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:31 PM, César wrote: > After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from the > command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I realize that GCC > 5.3.0 may require a newer linker than the default in Xcode for Tiger, but > even if I select

Default linker changed when installing GCC 5.3.0 on Tiger

2016-04-26 Thread César
Hi, After installing GCC 5.3.0 in Tiger, I realized that if I invoke ld from the command line, I'm actually invoking /opt/local/bin/ld. I realize that GCC 5.3.0 may require a newer linker than the default in Xcode for Tiger, but even if I select GCC 4.0.1 as the current compiler, ld still invokes

Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Tuesday April 26 2016 13:06:20 Brandon Allbery wrote: >I think you can rely on that for maybe 95% of things, but the remaining >5%... I've had to help people fix things afterward. Do you remember what kind of issue? I'm curious to know under what conditions "base" cares whether supposedly

Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:02 PM, René J.V. wrote: > Is that really a problem? IIRC I've already had restored files that had > "mysteriously" gone missing by (force) deactivating the corresponding port > and then activating it again I think you can rely on that for maybe

Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Tuesday April 26 2016 09:28:09 Brandon Allbery wrote: >The registry's a bit of a risk, since it will be logically inconsistent if >you aren't backing up the whole install. If I needed to worry about this, Is that really a problem? IIRC I've already had restored files that had "mysteriously"

Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread Geoffrey Odhner
I wish what you say were true, but Time Machine eventually can get to a point where it requires you to delete everything or start a new backup volume.  This can happen when its size is considerably larger than the size of the drive it's backing up.  I know this because it has happened to me.  

Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread Bachsau
René J.V. Bertin wrote on 26.04.2016 13:19: Superfluous backing up of course ends up wasting significant amount of space on the backup disk esp. for developers who regularly to something like `port -n upgrade --force` after an incremental rebuild with only minimal changes. It is also costly

Re: de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:19 AM, René J.V. wrote: > Is there a good way to exclude most of MacPorts from being backed up while > retaining the possibility to reinstall without rebuilding? I'm thinking of > backing up selected bits from var/macports (notably the registry and

de/activate and Time Machine

2016-04-26 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Hi, I'm probably not the only one who noticed: after deactivating and reactivating a large port like Qt5, the next Time Machine backup announces (or at least claims) to have much more to backup that one would expect (over 1.5Gb in case for Qt5). That suggests that the backup engine looks at