standard way to require c++11?

[Mihai Moldovan]

On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist
> PortGroup? I believe that pure C++11 projects need consistent handling
> and it would be very handy to allow a keyword like "compiler.c++11" or
> "compiler.<something> c++11" to replace all of the logic above inside
> a port.

I've now added a new PortGroup called cxx11, which does the blacklisting and
stdlib checking.

Extending compiler_blacklist_versions looked too complicated, as its logic is
contained in multiple procs and one option_proc.

Also, using "PortGroup cxx11 1.0" vs. "compiler.c++11"/"compiler.<something>
c++11" is practically the same thing.

Feel free to improve it and hit me, if I messed something up.



Mihai


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20150429/9f08e15f/attachment.sig>