standard way to require c++11?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:

> On 30.04.2015 03:56 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:37 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> That was going to be my suggestion, to avoid a proliferation of portgroups that all do something similar.
>> 
>> For example, right now I'm dealing with the fact that gpsd 3.14 requires C11 (not C++11), and would like to be able to indicate that so that pre-C11 compilers get blacklisted.

This was solved another way, and I haven't had this problem before, but it seems like it could come up again.


> Hmm, a valid request. But what is an appropriate name for such a PortGroup?
> "standards"?

Yeah I'm not sure.


> And what should the default value be? C++11? C11?

I think we should probably move toward portgroups where the default is not to do anything, and some directive has to be used to activate the portgroup's behavior.

For example the github portgroup does nothing unless "github.setup" is invoked, though we should also move away from .setup procedures, like the php and python portgroups already have.

The app portgroup is an anti-example: just including the portgroup makes it try to add an app bundle, because the default for app.create is "yes"; we should change it to "no" so that including the portgroup does nothing, and the behavior has to be activated by setting "app.create yes" in the portfile. This becomes more important as portgroups start including each other, or for ports that want to use a portgroup's functionality only in a subport or variant.