C++11 on Mountain Lion and lower?

[Titus von Boxberg]

Hi,
 
I think we're meaning the same thing. My first sentence was misleading.
 
In my opinion, it's not "much" cost (at least extra) to drop boost or 
another C++ lib into macports and "simply" have it compile (please don't 
beat me, in my eyes bjam is an abomination, so I really feel with the port 
maintainer).
On the other hand, things like providing an own C++ runtime for older OSX 
versions would be really (too) "much".
 
And of course, I also would like to keep macports providing libraries.
I'm only trying to say that shouldn't have too "much" extra cost (how many 
libs live in macports that aren't used in any of mp's executable ports, 
anyway?)
For C++11 I abandoned this idea some two years ago.
If it comes back with 10.9, fine.
 
Regards,
Titus

 
----------------------------------------
From: "Chris Jones" <jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2013 15:18
To: "Titus von Boxberg" <titus at v9g.de>
Cc: macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
Subject: Re: C++11 on Mountain Lion and lower?

Hi,

> you dropped the last text block from my mail where I said
> that I think that macports shouldn't care much
> about users using macports libraries for their own software.

I very much disagree here. MacPorts is *not* just about providing a 
bunch of applications for users to run, but also about providing a 
framework within which people can develop their own private 
applications. This has been something MacPorts has cared about and I 
very much hope it stays that way.

Note, this does not mean I don't agree that perhaps the best appropriate 
here is to declare c++11 unavailable in macports in anything less than 
OSX10.9. Both internally to MacPorts, for building ports, and externally 
to users. That might well be the best way to proceed....

Chris


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20131204/aeeba0d3/attachment-0001.html>