[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       macports-users
Subject:    Re: port listed to be upgraded but not upgraded
From:       Joshua Root <jmr () macports ! org>
Date:       2018-09-10 5:47:55
Message-ID: f09d7d7a-d825-5973-f61f-40e8b34ded8b () macports ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2018-9-10 14:23 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 23:21, Joshua Root wrote:
> 
> > On 2018-9-10 13:23 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > > It is fine for ports to offer different versions to different platforms. Up to \
> > > now, a "platform" was the combination of an operating system name, major \
> > > version number, and architecture (PowerPC or Intel). It has been proposed that \
> > > the C++ standard library should be added to that definition. Code implementing \
> > > that has already been added to portindex. We have not yet deployed changes to \
> > > the server to generate separate indexes per C++ standard library, and we have \
> > > not modified MacPorts base to look for a different index on the server \
> > > depending on the C++ standard library. We should make both of those changes.
> > 
> > Oh sure, you can multiply the number of portindexes easily enough to
> > reflect one more configuration choice. It's not a sustainable design
> > direction though.
> 
> We're only talking about adding a libc++ index for 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8. \
> We're not talking about adding further indexes for other reasons.

I'm not only talking about this one problem, I'm talking about the
bigger picture. Anyway this has gone off-topic for -users.

- Josh


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]